Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Burglary, Culham

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, following the discovery of the theft of £6,900 at R.N.A.S., Culham, how long elapsed before Oxfordshire civil police and Royal Naval Special Investigation Branch police were informed and visited the station, respectively.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The burglary was discovered soon after 8 a.m. on 6th September, 1945, and the Oxfordshire Police were informed by telephone at 8.15 a.m. A police constable arrived shortly afterwards, followed by a sergeant at 9 a.m., and at 11 a.m. an inspector from Wheatley took charge of the investigations. Royal Marine Police Headquarters, Portsmouth, were informed by telephone at 9.45 a.m., and detectives arrived at R.N. Air Station, Culham, at 2 p.m.

Sir G. Fox: Were the police able to discover whether this was the work of a highly organised outside gang?

Mr. Dugdale: I have no reason for supposing so.

Sir G. Fox: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty following the theft of £6,900 at Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, if he has made an investigation into the precautions taken by the Royal Naval Police; and if he has any statement to make in connection therewith.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The investigations showed that the night patrols by the Royal Marine Police were inadequately carried out, and that their supervision and instructions were insufficient. Suitable disciplinary action has been taken.

Sir G. Fox: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is a disgrace to his Department that three heavy safes, one weighing three cwt., can be spirited away from a Royal Naval Air Station?

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it very difficult to keep pace with private enterprise?

Mr. Medland: In view of the admission in the answer, are the Admiralty prepared to make good the losses to personnel who had money lodged in the safes?

Mr. Dugdale: If the hon. Gentleman will await my answer to the next Question he will see.

Sir. G. Fox: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, following the theft of £6,900 at the Royal Naval Air Station, Culham, directions have been given to all royal naval air stations for bricking in safes; and when will a decision be taken to reimburse the naval personnel who suffered losses.

Mr. Dugdale: The directions for safes to be embedded in brick and concrete are part of the additional security measures taken to prevent a recurrence of this type of theft.
As regards the moneys lost, approval has been given for the reimbursement out of public funds of the amounts lost by the three Station funds, and of the clothing gratuity lost by the W.R.N.S. officer. The question of the replacement of the private money lost by the two naval officers is under consideration, but I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that as it raises a matter having wide repercussions, not only in the Navy but elsewhere, I cannot give an immediate reply today.

Sir G. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department have now been discussing this for eight months with other Departments, and why should these officers, who have lost £200, not be reimbursed?

Mr. Dugdale: I only want to make it quite clear that this is not a rule which affects the Royal Navy alone. It affects other Departments. That is why I am having it examined.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these losses are covered by insurance?

Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice

Demobilisation Pay (Crossed Cheques)

Mr. Hoboson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will make arrangements whereby R.N. ratings can receive their pay and leave allowance on demobilisation by means of money orders in lieu of crossed cheques.

Mr. Dugdale: While it is possible that issue of crossed cheques can well cause some inconvenience to R.N. ratings, the Admiralty has, in fact, received few complaints. As my hon. Friend will realise, it would be impracticable to effect a change at this precise moment, when demobilisation is at its height, owing to the great pressure of work on the Admiralty accounts staff. I am, however, considering, as a result of my hon. Friend's Question, whether later in the year, when the pressure of work is less, the Amiralty can adopt the system of payment by money order which he has suggested.

Mr. Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say what is the legal authority for compelling men who probably have no banking account to accept payment by means of a crossed cheque; and why is it thought that ratings will find it easier to cash cheques than for the authorities to make other arrangements?

Mr. Dugdale: As regards the first question, I am afraid I cannot say the legal authority. As regards the second question, I have found this system to be that which is taking place in the Admiralty, and, quite frankly, I personally would like to see another system. However, the change cannot be effected during the very great pressure of work that is now engag-

ing the Department as the result of demobilisation.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Why could not they be paid with open cheques instead of crossed cheques?

Mr. Dugdale: Because it would be extremely unsafe. They might well get lost and be cashed by somebody else.

Captain Marsden: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the method of payment used in the United States to both naval and Merchant Service ratings, namely, by travellers' cheques of small denomination?

Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly consider that.

Ex-Prisoners (Refresher Courses)

Mr. Willis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements are being made to enable chief and E.R.A. ex-prisoners of war to refresh their knowledge, so that they will suffer no handicap when seeking promotion, as the result of the time they have spent in prisoner-of-war camps.

Mr. Dugdale: So far, no cases have been reported of chief or engine room artificers ex-prisoners of war experiencing difficulty in qualifying for advancement, but special refresher courses will be instituted if found to be necessary.

Industrial Staff (Discharges)

Mr. Willis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that the Department of Inspection of Naval Ordnance, when considering discharges on the grounds of redundancy on the basis of those with least Government service being discharged first, allow civilian service in other Admiralty departments to count, but do not allow ex-naval employees to count their naval service; and if he will take steps to remove this anomaly.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to industrial or non-industrial staff. Discharges among non-industrial staff are governed by the procedure agreed by a committee of the National Whitley Council. Under this procedure, time spent in the Forces during the recent war is included in the calculation of length of service for the purpose of determining the order of discharge


on redundancy. Industrial staff discharges are regulated by an agreement made between the trade union and official sides of the Admiralty Industrial Council. This provides that in the case of workpeople in Admiralty employ who later joined the Forces, " length of service," as one of the factors determining the order of discharge, includes service with the Forces.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that in both fields, the rules followed by the Admiralty are those laid down in agreement with the representatives of the employees concerned. If, however, he would care to let me have details of any particular cases giving rise to his Question, I should be pleased to look into the matter further.

Chief Ordnance Artificers

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many applications since 1st January, 1946, have been made by ordnance artificers who are eligible to take the examination for chief ordnance artificer; and whether he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to meet naval requirements.

Mr. Dugdale: Fourteen applications for examination for chief ordnance artificer have been received since 1st January, 1946. This is enough to meet requirements.

Petty Officers

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of petty officers of the seaman branch, who are eligible, have elected to complete time for pension since January, 1946.

Mr. Dugdale: Twenty-seven per cent.

Commander Maitland: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this is most unsatisfactory? Does he not consider that it is very largely due to the lack of inducement held out by the new pay code? How are we going to get senior petty officers in the Navy in future?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot admit that at all.

Commander Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to raise these ratings in the future, in view of this rather disturbing figure?

Mr. Dugdale: There is a recruiting campaign now being carried on, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will do his utmost to support it.

Mr. James Callaghan: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the percentage is as low as 27 per cent.?

Mr. Dugdale: Not without notice.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is this not a question of the inducements? How can any publicity campaign or recruiting campaign affect the matter if the conditions are not improved?

Mr. Dugdale: Conditions are considerably improved in many respects on those under previous Governments.

Major Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman note the Opposition campaign for economies in this regard, when he considers this question?

Commander Maitland: Can the hon. Gentleman say how he thinks this recruiting campaign is going to help us in the provision of petty officers and chief petty officers in the Royal Navy in the immediate future?

Mr. Dugdale: Obviously, it cannot affect them in the immediate future, but I hope those people who are recruited will obtain rapid promotion and become petty officers and chief petty officers.

Warrant Officers

Commander Maitland: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can now state the terms of service for warrant officers.

Mr. Dugdale: Consideration of the position of the warrant officer classes in the postwar Royal Navy is not yet completed. It is hoped, however, that a considerable measure of improvement in their general conditions of service will shortly be promulgated.

Mr. Medland: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the abolition of this class distinction, and put these men straight into the wardroom?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the terms will be published, so that warrant officers may know as soon as possible what they are?

Mr. Dugdale: I can say only " as soon as possible."I cannot give the date today.

Quartermaster Branch

Commander Noble: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the duties of the new quartermaster branch of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Dugdale: Precise details of this new branch are still under consideration. There will be three grades, corresponding to the rates of able seamen, leading seamen, and petty officer or chief petty officer, respectively. Courses of instruction will be given, and ratings will have to pass qualifying examinations for promotion as for other technical rates. The quartermaster branch will provide quartermasters and boatswain's mates in all H.M. ships, and will absorb the existing rates of destroyer and submarine coxswain. The quartermaster will be able to rise to warrant and commissioned rank under the same conditions as other seamen.

Tormentor Maintenance Yard, Warsash

Mr. Spence: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the derequisitioning of the Tormentor maintenance yard at Warsash has been held up, having regard to the fact that the service vacated it two months ago and that it is required for civilian boat building.

Mr. Dugdale: The future of this establishment, on which a considerable amount of public money has been spent, and which is now occupied by a naval care and maintenance party, is the subject of active consideration by the Admiralty, in consultation with the other authorities concerned. I will undertake to inform the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.

Mr. Spence: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in looking into this matter, that the new owners of this yard are ex-Servicemen who want to get a start in earning their living? Will he take that into consideration?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of applications for the last entry into the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook; the number of boys who were accepted; and the reasons for the rejections.

Mr. Dugdale: The number of applicants for the May, 1946, entry to the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, was 96, of whom 70 were accepted, 12 failed medically, and 14 failed educationally.

Commander Pursey: When does the Admiralty intend to fill this orphanage to capacity, preferably with the orphans of men who served in the Navy and the Mercantile Marine during the last war?

Mr. Dugdale: We are anxious to do that as soon as possible.

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of boys who entered the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, on the last occasion who had, respectively, both parents dead, father dead, mother dead, and both parents alive.

Mr. Dugdale: Of the 70 boys entered at the last entry, one had lost both parents, 47 had lost father, two had lost mother, and 20 had both parents living.

Compassionate Leave (Parents' Illness)

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what grounds compassionate leave is refused to serving men to come home to see dying parents merely because they have brothers or sisters already at home; and whether he is satisfied that this policy is fair both to the parents and to the man.

Mr. Dugdale: Until this year compassionate leave to visit parents who are seriously ill was not granted in the Royal Navy except in very rare cases. This rule has now, however, been altered so as to allow leave in cases where no other son or daughter is available. It has been adopted by all three Services in fairness to men due to return to the United Kingdom and other compassionate cases, such as the illness of a wife. The number of cases of serious illness of parents is large, and if the rule were extended to cover every such case, considerable difficulties would occur both in manning the Fleet and in providing passages. I will, however, consult my Service colleagues with a view to seeing whether any relaxation is possible.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the case to which he knows I specifically refer is that of a mother who has several sons serving, who is dying of


cancer, and who is prevented from seeing her sons—whom she has not seen for a long time—wholly on account of this arbitrary rule of the Admiralty? Will he please have that rule changed so that the boys can come home?

Mr. Dugdale: I have said I will look into the matter in consultation with the other Service Ministers.

Families of Personnel (Foreign Stations)

Mr. Driberg: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been made to grant free passages to the families of Naval personnel stationed abroad for long periods.

Mr. Dugdale: I should like to apologise for the length of the reply. The Government have decided to accept the principle of paying the cost of passage and removal expenses for the families of naval officers and men appointed to serve normal commissions on stations abroad, other than B.A.O.R., where suitable accommodation can be found for them on the station. Provision of accommodation and payment for it must remain the responsibility of the officer or man concerned: and permission to have his family with him will be subject in each instance to the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief who will assure himself that the man has suitable and accessible accommodation to which to bring his family, and that the main object of the scheme—to enable the man to be with his family during periods on leave and off duty—will be achieved. I should like to make it quite clear that owing to the shortage of accommodation this concession will not mean that every man serving abroad will at once be able to have his family with him. Until there is enough accommodation, there will have to be a limit on the number of passages granted.
The concession will for the present apply to all ratings appointed for a normal commission to shore or harbour duties abroad, and to officers, chief petty officers and petty officers appointed for a normal commission to a sea-going ship based on a port abroad. It will apply equally to Royal Marines of corresponding ranks. It will be limited to those areas to which the families of Servicemen generally are admitted. The arrangements will be brought into force at an early date, and

will be applied under the conditions described above to all at present serving abroad who can normally expect to remain for at least another year on the station.
In all cases application must in the first instance be made by the officer or man himself to the Commander-in-Chief through the usual Service channels. As soon as adequate accommodation becomes available, the scheme will be extended in accordance with the principles enunciated in the opening words of this statement.

Captain Marsden: Can the Financial Secretary explain " accommodation " a little more, because he used the word several times? Will this be a matter for the senior naval officer on the station? Is it Government accommodation which will be made available, or accommodation generally obtained privately?

Mr. Dugdale: It is accommodation generally obtained privately. At the moment it is quite impossible for the Admiralty to provide the necessary accommodation, particularly in places such as Malta.

Mr. Stephen: In view of the fact that the limited accommodation will be less than the number of applicants, will there be a ballot, or on what principles will it be decided who is to get the accommodation?

Mr. Dugdale: It will be a question of hardship. The man who has the greatest need will have first preference.

Commander Noble: Is the question of married quarters for those serving ashore under consideration?

Mr. Dugdale: If the hon. and gallant Member reads the answer, he will see that ratings ashore will be entitled to accommodation when serving abroad.

Pensioners' Medals (Restoration)

Commander Noble: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the regulations governing the restoration of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal to pensioners who have been deprived of it for misconduct during the period of their recall to the R.N.

Mr. Dugdale: If a pensioner loses his Long Service and Good Conduct Medal


for misconduct during the period of recall, the regulations do not provide for its restoration.

Commander Noble: Will the Financial Secretary give sympathetic consideration to any applications for the restoration of these medals, bearing in mind the great store men set on them?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, but in view of the very high honour attached to these medals, we have to be careful that the standard is maintained.

Commander Maitland: Can the Financial Secretary say whether the conditions attaching to active service cannot be made to apply, whereby when a man has had five years of continuous " V.G." service after he has lost the medal, he gets it back automatically and before he retires?

Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly give that consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Bombing Exercises

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many aircraft have been lost in bombing practices since the end of the war; and the number of such practices held.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Fifteen large scale bombing exercises, in which 766 aircraft of Bomber Command and 82 aircraft of Fighter Command took part, have been carried out from the United Kingdom between VJ-Day and the end of April, 1946. No aircraft have been lost or have suffered major damage on these practices.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the alarming and absolutely inaccurate statements which are going about the country, will the Under-Secretary see that that statement receives the widest publicity?

Mr. de Freitas: I hope that this Question and answer will receive the widest publicity.

Education Officers

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to state if education officers in the R.A.F. will, in future, be a fully mobilised service with good conditions.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Morley: Is the Under-Secretary aware that there is very grave discontent among the officers in the Royal Air Force, and that unless some improvement is made we shall not be able to maintain the establishment of these officers?

Mr. de Freitas: I am aware that there is some dissatisfaction, but I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which I hope to make after Whitsun.

Incidents, India (Courts Martial)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many more courts martial are to take place in connection with the R.A.F. strikes of last February; and how much longer the present inquiries will last.

Mr. de Freitas: Two more courts martial in connection with the incidents in India are pending, but it is not certain that the men Will be brought to trial. The inquiries have now been completed.

Mr. Callaghan: May we assume from that reply that the period of tenseness in the Royal Air Force has now come to an end, and that there will be no more of these courts of inquiry regarding the unhappy events of last February?

Mr. de Freitas: These inquiries have been completed; they are now being considered and two courts martial are pending, but it is not certain that the men will be brought to trial.

Raid, Cluntoe Aerodrome

Professor Savory: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any of the arms stolen in the raid on Cluntoe aerodrome, County Tyrone, on the night of 17th April have been recovered, and if so, under what circumstances.

Mr. de Freitas: I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have recovered the stolen revolver, but I have no knowledge of the circumstances.

Professor Savory: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that all the weapons, with the exception of one revolver, have been recovered at a dump of the Irish Republican Army near Dungannon, and will he deny the allegations that this was a frame-up on behalf of the Royal Air Force?

Mr. de Freitas: I have no other information except that the Royal Ulster Constabulary recovered the stolen revolver. I have no knowledge of the circumstances in which it was recovered.

Permanent Airfields, Norfolk

Mr. Gooch: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number and names of airfields in Norfolk which his Department propose to retain permanently.

Mr. de Freitas: The airfields to be retained for the peacetime Air Force have not yet been finally decided, but at present we are planning to keep 22 airfields in Norfolk. I am sending my hon. Friend a list showing the names of the stations.

Mr. Gooeh: Does the Under-Secretary realise that the retention of so many airfields in my county is restricting food production? Does he not realise that this matter is extremely urgent?

Mr. de Freitas: I realise it is urgent that they should be released. During the war we had 37 Service airfields in Norfolk, and 15 of these we are now declaring to be surplus. We are, of course, in close touch with the Minister of Agriculture on this matter.

Mr. Stephen: Will the Under-Secretary publish the names in HANSARD?

Mr. de Freitas: I deliberately did not do that because I felt it was a local matter and not a matter of general interest. If the names are required, they will certainly be published in HANSARD.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the defence of this country will have priority over the interests of Norfolk?

Mr. de Freitas: indicated assent.

Mr. Osborne: Is the same thing being carried out in the county of Lincolnshire?

Mr. Hare: Is the Under-Secretary prepared to issue a general statement, in a reasonable period of time, stating which aerodromes in the country the Royal Air Force intend to retain, as this is a question of great importance to many counties.

Mr. de Freitas: I will look into that and see what can be done.

Personal Case

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the nature of the charge against No. 62801 L.A.C. Robert Deans, Headquarters, Desert Air Force, Udine, Italy; and how long he has been under arrest in the guard room, awaiting trial.

Mr. de Freitas: This airman has been in close arrest since 16th January awaiting trial on charges of absence without leave on two occasions. There have been difficulties in bringing him to trial owing to the release of material witnesses, out I am awaiting a fuller report on this long delay and will circulate a statement in HANSARD as soon as I can.

Mr. Stokes: Has the Service any right to keep a man under close arrest for so long? Surely he ought not to be under close arrest?

Mr. de Freitas: I have called for a full report on this matter. It requires a great deal of explanation, on the face of it, and that is why I have asked for this report. I will circulate a statement in HANSARD.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: When is the man likely to be brought to trial?

Mr. de Freitas: Within a month

Mr. Willis: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that the original charges against this man are entirely different from those stated in the answer?

Mr. de Freitas: I am not aware of that. The facts are that he is charged with being absent without leave for two periods, one of eight days, and one of two months.

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that this long period of time awaiting trial will be taken into account if the man is found guilty?

Mr. de Freitas: Under the Rules of Procedure, paragraph 46, that automatically happens.

Demobilisation Delay, Palestine

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air to what extent delay in demobilisation of troops in the district of Haifa has been due to transport difficultties; and what steps are being taken to see that demobilisation will not again fall be hind schedule.

Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid that the demobilisation of some airmen was delayed owing to a railway strike in Palestine in April. The men were sent by sea to Port Said after having been held up about five days. Unfortunately, there is very little we can do to prevent delays due to happenings of this kind.

Typists, Records Office, Ruislip

Mr. Hurd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied that all the W.A.A.F. shorthand-typists at the R.A.F. Records Office, Ruislip, are fully employed; and, if not, if he will expedite the rate of release so that these girls may be more usefully occupied in civilian life.

Mr. de Freitas: The R.A.F. Record Office is very fully employed on the demobilisation programme and consequent postings. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would give me particulars of under employment in the office, and I will, of course, look into the matter.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister give these girls the pleasure of a surprise visit and ask them himself if time is hanging heavily on their hands?

Mr. de Freitas: I shall be delighted to go and look at these girls, and I shall attempt to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Heathrow (Technical Report)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is intended to publish the expert report on which the development of the London airport at Heathrow is now proceeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): The report in question was prepared for Departmental use only. The subject matter is highly technical, and I do not think that the report would be of sufficient general interest to warrant publication. A precis is being prepared, and I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in view of the very large sum of money expended on this airport, it is a matter of general interest, and cannot the whole of the report be published?

Mr. Thomas: There is certainly general interest in the aerodrome, but I think that the precis will meet that general interest, which I thoroughly recognise.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the hon. Gentleman say why this airport at Heathrow is being formally opened before it is really finished?

Mr. Thomas: I will reply to a later Question on that subject.

Ex-R.A.F. Pilots

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many ex-R.A.F. pilots have been engaged by B.O.A.C. and British-South American Air Lines since VE-Day; and what percentage had operated with multi and single-engined aircraft.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The answer to the first part of the Question is 101 and 36 respectively. As to the second part of the Question, all these pilots have had operational experience on multi-engined types of aircraft except that 4 per cent. of the British Overseas Airways Corporation total had had operational experience only on single-engined aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the figures show that there is discrimination in favour of pilots who have been trained in Bomber Command, and will he see that pilots who have been in other commands get an equal opportunity of employment with these air lines?

Mr. Thomas: I should hesitate to make that inference, but the moral which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has drawn has been pointed out to the corporations.

Fire Fighting and Crash Tender Work

Flying-Officer Bowden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what arrangements are made on civil aerodromes under the control of his Department to deal with aircraft crashes and aircraft fires; and what arrangements are being made to train personnel in aircraft fire fighting and crash tender work, particularly on British aerodromes overseas.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Crash and fire lighting equipment manned by trained persons are provided on all the more important civil aerodromes under the control of the


Ministry of Civil Aviation. Similar provision will be made at the smaller aerodromes as soon as the necessary staff can be recruited, trained and equipped. Existing crash crews have been trained in aircraft fire fighting and crash tender work and new entrants are trained in these duties before they are employed on airfields. No British aerodromes overseas are controlled by my Noble Friend.

Flying-Officer Bowden: Would my hon. Friend say whether or not trained aircraft crash tender crews stand by whenever aircraft take off or land, or are.they distributed over the aerodrome awaiting for calls?

Mr. Thomas: It is the regular practice for the crews to be ready whenever an aircraft takes off or lands.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent crash in which I took part, the first persons to arrive at the wreck were the Customs officials?

Renfrew Airport

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when he proposes to instal at Renfrew Airport, radar and air navigational aids necessary for receiving aircraft in foggy weather; and to make accommodation available for the collection of Customs and Excise duties.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Medium frequency direction finding radio equipment has been in use at Renfrew for many years, and high frequency radio telephony has recently been added to the navigational aids available. It is hoped to instal a standard beam approach system within the next two months and to provide ground lighting before next winter. Decisions have not yet been taken on types of radar aid to be used on internal and continental air services generally; the results of the recent International Conference in Paris, which discussed this subject amongst others, are being studied. International air services are not, at present, using Renfrew, but plans are in hand to provide accommodation for Customs examination to make such services possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Master and Servant Legislation

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in how many

British colonial territories the master and servant legislation is not in accordance with the provisions and recommendations of the I.L.O. Convention of 1939; in what respects the law differs from the standards laid down by that convention; and what plans have been made to bring the law into line with those standards.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): As the answer is rather long and detailed, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There were two relevant International Labour Conventions of 1939, the Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers) Convention which is a natural complement to the Recruiting of Indigenous Workers' Convention of 1936 and the Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the latter, which deals with breaches of contract in the form of:
(a) any refusal or failure of the worker to commence or to perform the work stipulated in the contract;
(b)any neglect of duty or lack of diligence on the part of the worker;
(c)the absence of the worker without permission or valid reason; and
(d)desertion by the worker.

The Convention provides that all penal sanctions for such breaches of contract shall be abolished as soon as possible, and that all penal sanctions for any such breach by a non-adult person shall be abolished immediately.

Penal sanctions for adults only exist, in respect of one or more of the breaches of contract mentioned in the Convention, in the master and servants legislation or similar legislation in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia, Zanzibar, Seychelles, Fiji and the Western Pacific Islands, but much of this legislation has fallen into disuse.

It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to see that all penal sanctions are abolished at the earliest date practicable. In many of the above cases the necessary legislation has been delayed through wartime shortage of legal staff.

Civil Service (Pensions)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what revision of present pensions of Colonial civil


servants is under consideration; and whether he is satisfied that the temporary increases recently authorised, subject to a means test, are adequate to prevent hardship.

Mr. George Hall: Pensions of Colonial civil servants are paid from the funds of Colonial Governments, and the question of temporary increases is primarily one for the legislatures concerned. A number of Colonial Governments have awarded temporary increases at the same rates, and subject to the same conditions, as those prescribed in Section I of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, and their awards are accordingly subject to the same limits as regards pensioners' income as those prescribed in that Section of the Act. As the hon. Member is aware the Pensions Increase Act is now under review and if changes are made in this country as a result of that review, I shall invite the attention of all Colonial Governments to them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with those Colonial Governments that have not conformed to this practice of bringing their procedure into line with those that have?

Mr. Hall: Yes, Sir. They are very few and I am doing what I can to get them to conform.

Captain Marsden: Should the applications for increases in pensions be made to the right hon. Gentleman's office or to himself, or through him to the Colonial Offices themselves?

Mr. Hall: The applications can be made to myself, but, as I said in reply to the Question, we follow the practice of increases in the United Kingdom.

MALAYA (PUBLIC ORDER)

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on public order in Malaya, and on the extent of outrages by Chinese bandits.

Mr. George Hall: In the area of the Malayan Union, depredations by isolated gangs of armed robbers operating close to towns continue to cause grave concern. With the return of trained European police officers, rigorous and systematic action to round up these gangs is being intensified. The figures for minor crime

continue to improve and in some areas approach pre-war levels. One gang recently rounded up consisted wholly of Japanese who had remained in hiding.
In Singapore before 15th February, 1946, there was wholesale intimidation of workers, shopkeepers and rickshaw coolies by subversive elements whose activities approached a direct challenge to Government. The situation changed entirely after action taken on and subsequent to the 15th February. There are however still isolated case of intimidation, and there have been a number of robberies by individuals and armed gangs.

Sir A. Gridley: May I ask the Colonial Secretary whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient military forces to come to the aid of the civil powers to protect the lives of Malayan citizens?

Mr. Hall: The military forces are engaged with the police in dealing with these matters, and I am satisfied that this cooperation is bringing about a peaceful solution of the matter.

PALESTINE

Illegal Possession of Arms

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons have been arrested by the military police in Palestine in the last six months for the illegal possession of arms; how many of these persons have been brought to trial; and how many convictions obtained.

Mr. George Hall: During the last six months, 345 Arabs and 93 Jews have been arrested for the illegal possession of arms. Of these, 159 Arabs and 17 Jews have been brought to trial, 122 Arabs and 14 Jews have been convicted and 101 Arabs and 71 Jews are awaiting trial.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the impression is gaining ground in Palestine that the administration is being somewhat lax in instituting proceedings, as these figures rather go to show, and will he secure that something is done by the administration to tighten up proceedings?

Mr. Hall: I have every confidence in the administration and that they are doing all they possibly can, in the circumstances in Palestine at the present time.

Police Force (Awards)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the hardship and danger incurred and the gallantry shown by members of the Palestine Police Force, he will authorise the issue of a medal to members of that force who have served in it for a period of not less than five years from 1931 onwards.

Mr. George Hall: The issue of a medal such as is suggested by the right hon. Member has not been contemplated, but provision was made for the award to the Palestine Police of the General Service Medal with clasp " Palestine "Instituted to recognise service during the disturbances from April, 1936, to September, 1939. The Palestine Police are eligible for the Colonial Police Medal and the King's Police Medal for meritorious service or gallantry, and a number of awards have been made recently. I need not say how heartily I endorse the reference to the gallantry of the Palestine Police and their fine record of service in most difficult circumstances. The suggestion of recognition in the form of the award of a further medal will certainly be borne in mind.

The locations of civil internment camps in Germany and their holdings of S.S. and political prisoners as at 23rd May, 1946.


Location of Civilian Internment Camp.
S.S. Prisoners.
Political Prisoners.
Total Internees.


Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.
Male.
Female.


Neumunster
…
…
1,156
—
6,196
—
7,352
—


Sandbostal
…
…
1,703
—
2,183
—
3,886
—


Fallingbostel
…
…
—
—
2,843
—
2,843
—


Recklinghausen
…
…
678
—
5,094
—
5,772
—


Paderborn
…
…
1,813
247
7,186
599
8,999
846


Neuengamme
…
…
2,102
—
4,967
—
7,069
—


Hemer
…
…
466
—
2,564
—
3,030
—


Westertimke
…
…
180
—
2,230
—
2,410
—


Esterwegen
…
…
—
—
2,099
1
2,099
1





8,098
247
35,362
600
43,460
847


In civil prisons for preliminary interrogation or in transit to camps or under
trial as War Criminals
…
—
—
382
—
382
—





8,098
247
35,744
600
43,842
847





8,345
36,344
44,689


The caloric value of the rations in the camps as at 1st December,
1945:

GERMANY

Prison Camps (Conditions)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will give a list of the camps in Germany in which S.S. men are detained, stating the numbers in each camp; whether he will give a similar list of camps used for political prisoners, and state the caloric value of the rations as at 1st December, 1945.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The answer is long, and with permission, I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House that the rations being served out to these people are living rations, and not in accordance with the terrible revelations that have come forward now in regard to some military camps?

Mr. Hynd: I would not guarantee that any rations in Germany at the present time are up to what I consider a reasonable living standard, but having regard to conditions in Germany I am satisfied that the rations in those camps are adequate and extremely favourable in comparison with the ordinary civilian ration.

Following is the statement:

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Germans are at present imprisoned in the British zone in Germany without trial; how many of these are imprisoned as Nazis; how many because they belong to certain categories and how many as suspected war criminals; by what date he estimates that the last of such persons will have undergone trial; and whether he is satisfied that the standard of accommodation, feeding, medical facilities and general treatment in the camps in which these men and women are interned and, in particular, in the senior officers' internment camp at Ostend are entirely satisfactory.

Mr. J. Hynd: Roughly 45,000 are at present in prison, including 41,000 dangerous Nazis and security suspects and 4,000 suspected war criminals. These persons will be tried as quickly as possible, but I cannot give a date by which their trials will be completed; large numbers are involved and the majority cannot be tried until the Nuremberg Tribunal has given its verdict on criminal organisations.
The treatment of internees in the British zone has recently been reviewed. As a result, food production activities have been intensified; balanced rations are provided for hospital patients; postal facilities have been extended and welfare arrangements generally have been improved. The senior officers' internment camp at Ostend is a prisoner of war camp for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is responsible.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been a number of disquieting reports from reliable officers and even more disquieting rumours regarding conditions in a number of camps in Germany, and if half those reports are true they cast a grave reflection indeed on our administration? In the light of that, can the Minister give us an assurance that our treatment of German prisoners has been guided, is guided and will be guided by justice combined with firmness?

Mr. Hynd: I can give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance from the time I took over the administration on 5th April. I know that there are a number of rumours and a number of statements made concerning the conditions in these camps. Obviously I cannot check.

up every single statement, but I can assure the House that I have made personal investigation into some of the statements, and I have been assured by the internees themselves that the statements are entirely without foundation. The latest story was concerned with a camp at Recklinghausen, and I took the opportunity of inviting the party of Members now in the British zone to visit the camp. I believe they completely satisfied themselves that the situation was far from as stated.

Mr. Eden: In view of the importance of the matter and cognate military matters to our good name, would the hon. Gentleman undertake in respect not only of his own administration but of the time before that, which is also a Government responsibility, to institute an inquiry so that all the facts will be publicly known?

Mr. Hynd: There is a Question on the Order Paper to the Secretary of State for War in regard to the previous period.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the staffs preparing and sifting the evidence against these persons are adequate? Is he also satisfied that they are not being asked to rush through a number of cases anyhow? Is sufficient importance given to the accuracy and justice of the cases rather than to the speed with which they are being conducted?

Mr. Hynd: I certainly am not satisfied that the British staff on this particular section is adequate to the task, nor is the British staff adequate to the general work of the administration of this tremendous area, but within the facilities that are at our disposal and with the staff available I think I can give the assurance that the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks.

Music Performances

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which musical compositions, other than the Horst Wessel song, are not allowed by his Department to be performed in public in the British zones of Germany and Austria primarily on account of their association with Nazism and militarism.

Mr. J. Hynd: There is no list of musical compositions the public performance of which is banned in the British zones of


Germany and Austria. This is a matter which is left to the good sense and discretion of the British authorities on the spot.

War Memorials

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what German war memorials have been destroyed in the British zone.

Mr. J. Hynd: None, Sir, so far as I am aware, except for any which may have been destroyed as a result of land or air operations during the war.

Mr. Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to regard this matter as one which is receiving immediate attention?

Mr. Hynd: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by " receiving immediate attention."

Mr. Harris: Is he prepared to let the matter remain where it is?

Mr. Hynd: No, I should not have thought the House would wish it to be left where it is. If the inference of the question is that nothing should be done in this connection at all, I am quite sure that neither the House nor the country would wish us to allow the issue or circulation of the Lusitania Medal amongst other things.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman remember amongst other things that many thousands of British dead rest permanently in Germany, and that there would be the possible risk of reprisals against their memorials or graves if we declared war upon the German dead?

Mr. Hynd: I have given adequate assurance to the House, but this matter is being administered and interpreted by our own authorities in Germany, who have no intention of destroying legitimate war memorials, but, as I have stated, such things as the Lusitania Medal must be dealt with.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if part of the answer he read out relates to the graves of those who died in the 1914–18 war, and is that being put into operation? In other words, are these memorials not to be destroyed?

Mr. Hynd: It is being put into operation. If the Noble Lord will read the

answer he will see that the directive issued makes provision for the destruction of any offensive memorials or other statues or inscriptions or anything of that kind which may be reminiscent of, or an encouragement to, Nazi ideals. There are many of these statues in that form in the British zone.

Mr. Churchill: Is not the destruction of these memorials in stone or bronze the way to write the ideals even more deeply in the minds of the people?

Mr. Hynd: I should certainly agree if it were a question of destroying memorials as such, but I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to agree that such an inscription as " Unbeaten Army " which appears on a number of memorials in Germany in the centre of towns is something which should not be encouraged in future.

Mr. Churchill: No. I think we have far more to do in building up a new world than that.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is quite impossible to differentiate between one type of memorial and another? Will he also bear in mind that it is a blasphemous thing to interfere with or destroy any memorial to those who fell in the war of 1914–18 or in the more recent war?

Mr. Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German nation, though it has been guilty of almost every war crime, has as a whole respected British war graves? I know that from my own personal experience and I was most impressed by what I saw in Germany.

Mr. Keeling: Instead of saying that this or that must be done or that this or that is offensive, would the hon. Gentleman not leave this matter, as in the case of music, to the persons on the spot?

Mr. Hynd: I would gladly have left it to the people on the spot, but it appears to be the wish of the House that the people on the spot should not have it left to them. The matter of the interpretation of some of the clauses of the directive is still under discussion by our representatives in Berlin.

An Hon. Member: Why not destroy the lot?

COAST EROSION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Prime Minister whether the investigation to determine which Ministry should be made responsible for dealing with coast erosion matters is completed; and if he will indicate the result.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) on 27th May.

Mr. Gooch: When the right hon. Gentleman visits my county will he spare a little time to look at the colossal problem with which that county is faced?

Mr. Morrison: I will think about it, but I was hoping to have a little rest when I was not on the platform.

TANKS (REPORTS)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now announce the decision regarding the publication of the two secret reports on tanks.

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for the publication of these reports as soon as possible, with the replies which were made to them by the Government at the time.

Mr. Stokes: I am greatly obliged.

FOOD SUPPLIES

Rationing

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Food if he will now give an assurance that there will be no further cut in the rations of the British people, and that no other foodstuffs will be rationed.

The M inister of Food (Mr. Strachey): A Minister of Food could ask for nothing better than to be able to give this assurance. But as the whole House knows the world food situation is far too grave for this to be possible. If the House will permit me to say so, nothing could be more irresponsible than for a new Minister to begin his period of office by making sweeping promises of this kind.

52.Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to announce the end of tea rationing.

Mr. Strachey: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) on 17th April. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall not maintain tea rationing a day longer than is necessary.

Mr. Erroll: In view of the newness of the Minister's appointment, could he make this one of the first things he looks into?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Pilchard Fishing Industry (Costings)

Mr. Beechman: asked the Minister of Food whether he will publish in HANSARD or in some other convenient form, the results of the costings taken out in regard to the pilchard fishing in dustry.

Mr. Strachey: The results of costings investigations undertaken by my Department are confidential and I cannot, therefore, publish the results of the investigation into the pilchard fishing industry as the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Beechman: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that not only is there great interest in the industry in this matter, but that the future of the industry depends upon these costings being known, considered and understood?

Mr. Strachey: I realise that it is of great importance. Investigation is still going on, but for many reasons I think it would be a great pity to depart from the rule that these costings investigations cannot be made public.

Food Ships (Unloading, Supervision)

Dr. Comyns: asked the Minister of Food what measures he has taken to prevent the wastage of food unloaded at the Royal Albert Dock, following upon the letter sent to his Department by the hon. Member for Silvertown.

Mr. Strachey: A detailed reply has already been sent to my hon. Friend by


my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Comyns: While thanking my hon. Friend for the written reply which I received subsequent to this Question being put on the Order Paper, may I ask him whether he will ensure that there will be more adequate supervision, by the officials of his Ministry, of the unloading of food ships?

Mr. Strachey: I am willing to look into that, but I am sure that the supervision is very adequate.

Co-operative Society (Membership Campaign)

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Manchester and Salford Co-operative Society is exhibiting posters throughout its branches offering 5s. to each of its members who will introduce new members; and what steps he proposes to take in view of the repeated requests by his Department that traders should not, under rationing conditions, canvass for registration.

Mr. Strachey: The posters exhibited by the Co-operative Society in question are concerned not with registration but with a new membership campaign. And membership of the society does not necessarily carry with it registration for rationed foods. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Shepherd: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a breach of the spirit which has been asked for, and that exception is taken to this action by private traders in the area?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot agree that there is a breach of the spirit of our desires in this matter, or of our regulations. There is no inducement offered to the potential customer; there is only inducement offered to the member to make other members, which is a very different thing.

Mr. Robens: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) are members of this Society, and bitterly resent the implications in his Question?

Mr. Butcher: Is it not a fact that many members of the Co-operative Society prefer to deal with private traders?

Mr. Strachey: It is perfectly true that they are free to do so.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Co-operative Movement exists to serve people, and that it should be encouraged to make new members?

Personal Case

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the death of John Thomas Taylor, South Road, Stourbridge, recently discharged from the R.A.F.; and why his Department refused an application for extra food which would have given him a better chance of resisting the illness from which he died.

Mr. Strachey: The application for extra food was examined urgently by my medical advisers, who did not consider that the course of the illness from which Mr. Taylor was certified to be suffering would be influenced by extra allowances of food. I am deeply sorry to learn of Mr. Taylor's death, but I cannot accept the view that the absence of extra food was in any way a contributory factor.

Mr. Moyle: Is my hon. Friend aware that medical evidence given at the inquest stated that if extra food had been given to this man it would have prolonged his life by enabling him to offer greater resistance to his illness?

Mr. Strachey: The medical evidence submitted to me was in an exactly contrary sense.

Mr. Moyle: In view of the great interest which this matter has aroused, and because I cannot accept my hon. Friend's reply as being satisfactory, I propose to raise the question again on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Surrendered Wheat

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food how much of the 200,000 tons of wheat, which it is proposed to send to Europe, was bought from the Canadian Government at the special price of 7s. 8d. a bushel, when the world price is about us.; and what price the Government will receive for the wheat now to be sent.

Mr. Strachey: The answer to the first part of the Question is, " None, Sir." As none of this wheat was either bought or sold the second part of the Question does not arise.

Sir W. Smithers: In order to clear up any misunderstanding there may be, will the hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that His Majesty's Government are not making any profit out of the wheat which has been sent to us by Canada at a reduced price?

Mr. Strachey: The wheat was not sent to us by Canada, there was ho buying or selling involved in the transaction and, therefore, there was no possibility of profit.

Argentine Maize

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Food whether His Majesty's Government purchased all available supplies of maize from the Argentine during the year April, 1945, to March, 1946; or to what extent, and in favour of which countries, were purchases cut down by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Strachey: . No, Sir; it was not possible for us to buy all the Argentine's maize exports available between April, 1945, and March, 1946, for the United Kingdom was only one of several buyers. Exports of maize from Argentina to the United Kingdom during the period amounted to about 32 per cent. of the total quantity which, according to trade estimates, was exported. We had to buy in the open market, and I am satisfied that we got our fair share.

Mr. York: Could the hon. Gentleman say exactly how this proportion was arrived at, by bargaining on the open market through the Combined Food Board, or in what manner?

Mr. Strachey: It was an open market transaction, and it was not governed by the Combined Food Board.

Food Losses (Transport Delays)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food if he will estimate the quantity of fresh food lost by reason of delays in transport within the United Kingdom since 1st January, 1946.

Mr. Strachey: I cannot give any exact figures, but I am satisfied that only an extremely small proportion of fresh food transported has been lost in this way, If the hon. Member, or any other Member, has any specific case in mind, and will let me have details, I will gladly have inquiry made and write to him.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of the Liverpool Road Haulage Association, that such food was being wasted daily by reason of the inefficiency of the Ministry of Transport's organisation, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will look in the direction of Liverpool?

Mr. Strachey: Perhaps the informant will give me specific details.

LINSEED OIL

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Minister of Food (1) if he is aware that the linoleum industry is at present only receiving an amount of linseed oil equal to 13.88 per cent. of that imported into this country and only 38 per cent. of that used by the industry in 1938; that unless supplies are increased the industry will be unable to reinstate men returning from the Forces and that a large number of men at present employed in the industry will have to be dispensed with; and what steps he is taking to prevent this;
(2) if he is satisfied that supplies of linseed oil acquired under the present control method are being equitably divided as between one country and another.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food whether our supplies of linseed oil are purchased from the Argentine through the Combined Food Board or on our own account; and what steps are being taken with the Argentine Government to ensure that prices are not raised owing to purchases by countries not represented on the Combined Food Board.

Mr. Strachey: Supplies of linseed oil are allocated between the various importing countries under the Combined Food Board. Under a unified purchasing plan the United Kingdom is responsible for buying in India and the United States for buying in Argentina. I am satisfied that the original allocation for 1946 was equitable, and gave this country its fair share. Nevertheless, the position is very serious because supplies have not come forward as was expected. This is partly because famine conditions have compelled the Indian Government to put a


ban upon exports and partly because the negotiations for purchase in Argentina have been very prolonged.
I am aware that a Russian mission has been negotiating for the purchase of linseed or linseed oil in South America. So long as Russia is not a member of the Combined Food Board she has, of course, a perfect right to do this. I am informed that so far, however, they have not been able to obtain any substantial quantities of oil. Everything that can properly be done by us to bring negotiations in Argentina on behalf of the Combined Food Board to a satisfactory conclusion is being done.
The allocation of our restricted supplies of linseed oil between the various using industries, including the manufacturers of paint and linoleum, is made in consultation with the various Departments concerned, and I am well aware that we have not found it possible to give to some industries, including the linoleum industry more than a small part of their prewar quantity. Moreover, whatever may happen in Argentina, the supply of linseed oil must give cause for anxiety for some time to come, and we are at this moment in course of reviewing the allocations for all purposes.

Mr. Hubbard: Is the Minister aware that, while the allocation of linseed oil to this country is only 40 per cent. of the prewar requirements, the allocation to the linoleum industry in America is roughly 80 per cent., and will he make representations with a view to bringing about a redistribution of the available supply?

Major Legge-Bourke: Which industry is to have priority, the paint industry or the linoleum industry?

Mr. Strachey: There cannot be any absolute priorities in this matter; it is a question of sharing out what supplies are available, in the best interests of the nation.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the increasing shortage of linseed oil is endangering the whole operation of the linoleum industry in Scotland, particularly the part from which I come, and that the people there are very much concerned about it?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman may be assured that they are no more con-

cerned about it than we are. It is a most serious situation. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard), we are, of course, making our needs known to the Combined Food Board as vigorously as we can.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the Minister satisfied that an economic price is being offered to the Argentine for linseed, and does he not consider that if we were to offer a price more comparable with that which Russia is prepared to pay, we should be able to secure greater and increasing quantities?

Mr. Strachey: There is, no doubt that great increases in price might improve the bargaining power of this country, but I ask hon. Members not to press the Government to increases in prices for our important imports. It is a most dangerous thing to do.

Mr. Churchill: It is still more dangerous not to get them.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not the case that linseed is available, and will go to the countries which are prepared to pay higher prices? If we need the linseed, should we not pay the price for it?

Mr. Strachey: It is not true in the case of most countries, because they are organised in the Combined Food Board, but in the case of the Argentine we are buying not merely for ourselves but for all the countries in the Combined Food Board.

WORLD FOOD SITUATION (MINISTER'S MISSION TO AMERICA)

Mr. H. Morrison: The House will no doubt have wondered, as I did, what lay behind the Press reports from Washington over the weekend suggesting that differences of interpretation have arisen between His Majesty's Government and the United States Government over the food agreement announced on 17th May and reported in my statement to the House on 23rd May. I find that various misunderstandings were caused by cabled Press messages of my statement before the official text was received by the State Department in Washington. One passage in particular was interpreted in some quarters as implying that the United States Government had assumed specific


commitments to export American wheat to particular areas, thus by-passing the established procedure by which these questions are settled through the Combined Food Board. I have confirmed to the United States Government what I have already told the House, namely that
These decisions are the decisions of the Governments concerned … to instruct their representative on the Combined Food Board.
The question of export commitments from particular countries to particular destinations did not arise during my visit to Washington and all claims upon the United States or other countries will, of course, be settled through Combined Food Board machinery at the appropriate stage in the usual way.
I have been in touch with Mr. Clayton, United States Assistant Secretary of State, and I am glad to say on his authority that there is not and never has been any misunderstanding between us on what we agreed. After receiving the official text of my statement and ascertaining that the first versions of it had been misinterpreted in the way I have explained, Mr. Clayton confirms that my statement—I quote his words—" correctly represents the understanding reached in our discussions."

Mr. Churchill: Was it not rather a pity that a subordinate official of the United States State Department should have contradicted the right hon. Gentleman in this rather disconcerting manner? Would it not be possible to revert to the policy which we always used during the war, namely, of telegraphing over beforehand to the United States the actual text of the words which were to be used? That must have occurred on dozens and even scores of occasions, and I never remember any trouble having arisen before. While perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had some right to complain, I think also we must put on record the fact that it is quite possible by telegraphic exchanges to have agreed statements made on matters which have been the subject of verbal discussion, and public advantage would arise therefrom.

Mr. Morrison: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's point. It would not have been practicable to have done this in advance without a delay in informing the House, and I do not think it would have

been appropriate on this occasion. In any case no harm has arisen in the sense that there is, or ever was, disagreement about the interpretation of the agreement between us and the United States Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was a pity that a subordinate official, a public relations officer, I think, of the State Department, should have entered into the matter, although I understand the circumstances in which he got drawn; but he is not my officer— he is an officer of the United States Government. We have made representations on that point to the State Department, and Mr. Clayton has expressed his regret on behalf of the United States Government, and, therefore, I think that side of the incident may now be regarded as closed.

Mr. Churchill: It may be regarded as closed, and in a very satisfactory manner, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Mr. Clayton's statement; but there is another question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on the merits, apart from the procedure. I think I was right in hearing the right hon. Gentleman say that the question of export commitments from particular countries for particular destinations did not arise during his visit to Washington. May I ask how he reconciles that with the statement which he made to the House that:
The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 543–4.]
The misunderstanding between the two countries is cleared up but the misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentle-roan and the House still requires further elucidation.

Mr. Morrison: The only difficulty about this is that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not complaining—does not understand the normal procedure these things follow.

Mr. Churchill: That is no doubt due to my lack of experience.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand everything. In this matter he has made it clear to the House that he does not understand the


procedure which is followed. Our business was to arrive at agreements about how much should be provided for. It was not our business to decide as to which country should provide how much to go to a particular place. That is the affair of the Combined Food Board and it is now being followed up in the ordinary way. There is nothing exceptional about this procedure. It is the usual procedure, and the only new factor was that there were high level negotiations to clear up some difficulties.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact—[Interruption]—I am so glad to give any occasion for hilarity to the hon. Gentlemen opposite who are, no doubt, feeling somewhat depressed over this matter. Is it not a fact that this matter was presented to us in the form of a very great sacrifice of 200,000 tons of wheat to be made by this country, involving we do not know what serious difficulties and increased privations, and were we not assured that in return for this, and linked with this, would be what I have read out, that
The United States Government have now felt able to associate themselves unreservedly with the task of supplying India and the British zone of Germany to the full extent that available resources allow and they have instructed their representatives on the Combined Food Board accordingly ?
Now all this latter part is whittled away, but the 200,000 tons cut for Great Britain remains.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will persist in a most dogged determination to try to make politics out of this. He is utterly incapable of judging the matter on its merits or the words themselves on their English meaning. The United States Government are associating themselves with us to the maximum extent to that end within the available resources on the Combined Food Board by instructing their representatives. The statement did not say, did not portend to say, and ought not to be understood by a reader of the King's English to mean, that thereby the United States said that the wheat would come from a particular place and go to a particular place.
It is perfectly clear that the statement I have made as to whether any of it will come from the United States—

Mr. R. S. Hudson: But not from the United States.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the former Minister of Agriculture now says, " But not from the United States." He will, I am sure, be quite disappointed to know that some of it is actually on the move from the United States.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am becoming a little puzzled. We seem to be entering into a Debate by a process of question and answer. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. There is to be a Debate on Friday devoted to this subject and the present procedure is somewhat irregular.

Mr. Churchill: I do not wish in any way to trespass upon your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, but a statement was made of very great importance by the Minister, on which it would be very necessary to point out in what ways matters had been cleared up and in what ways they had not. I should like to say that I used the interrogative form throughout my contribution.

Mr. Walkden: I should like to ask the Minister whether we are likely to have the promised Debate on Friday on the general question of his visit to America, in view of more recent Press reports from America concerning doubts about our supplies of wheat and the cut that will take place in August in the pipe line, and the fact that there may be a real gap which may determine the question of rationing bread because we shall not have much left.

Mr. Nicholson: May I be allowed to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's statement does need a little clearing up? I should like to put a simple question to him. Are the American and British zones in Germany in future to be regarded as one area from the point of view of food? Where does Austria come in?. What does his statement mean in India? Which Minister is to instruct our representatives on the Combined Food Board?

Mr. Morrison: That is covered in the statement I made last week. At any rate those parts of the question upon which I am able to give any information were so covered.

Mr. Nicholson: Are the British and American zones to be regarded as one food area in future?

Mr. Morrison: I made a perfectly clear statement on that last week, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the fact that the bubble which the Opposition were endeavouring to exploit has now burst, may I point out to the Lord President of the Council that we on this side of the House are most interested and anxious about the general food situation in the world? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to allow a Debate on Friday so that the whole matter may be discussed?

Mr. Morrison: The question of a Debate on Friday is, of course, under the usual procedure of the House, a matter for the Opposition. The House will be in Committee of Supply on Friday. Whether it will be discussing this subject or another is for the Opposition to decide. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if the Leader of the Opposition was in a position to say now, because then hon. Members would know whether the subject was coming up.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the anxiety that there is upon the other side of the House and the request by the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway for a Debate at an early date and, if possible, on Friday, I can assure the Leader of the House at this moment that we shall consider most earnestly this evening how far we can further the general desires of the supporters of the Government to have a fuller opportunity of interrogating Ministers upon the question.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Having regard to the real human tragedy which lies behind this problem, is the Lord President aware that the spiteful and malicious misrepresentation to which he has been subjected by hon. Members of the Opposition is in no way endorsed by the people of this country?

Mr. Speaker: Insinuations and imputations are out of Order in questions.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

RAILWAYS FARES AND FREIGHTS (INCREASES)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): In spite of an average increase of about 70 per cent. in railway costs, railway charges have been increased by only 16f per cent. generally and by 10 per cent. in the case of workmen's fares, season ticket rates, and the fares of the London Passenger Transport Board. This has been possible mainly because of the large volume of war-time traffic, much of it on Government account. Government traffic is now decreasing rapidly and there is a sharp fall in railway receipts. It is estimated that the surplus of £19 million earned last year over the fixed annual sums payable to the controlled undertakings will this year be transformed into a deficit of some £40 million. The Government have therefore decided, as a first and urgent step, to make as from 1st July, certain increases in the additions made to charges during the war. The principal items are increases of passenger fares from 16f per cent. to 33$ per cent. over prewar level, of workmen's fares and season ticket rates from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent. over prewar level, and of charges for goods train traffic from 16⅔ per cent. to 25 per cent. over prewar level. The increases of passenger fares will apply to the Green Line Services of the London Passenger Transport Board, but not to their other services. Fuller details will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
It is estimated that these increases will produce additional revenue of about £30 million in a full year. The Exchequer will therefore bear not only the full deficit up to the time when the increased charges bring in the additional revenue but also what remains of the deficit thereafter. I propose, accordingly, as a second step, to request the permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, to act as they did in 1940 as a Consultative Committee, and to advise me as to the best method of adjusting charges so that, for the year 1947, the aggregate of the net revenues paid into the Pool will approximate to the aggregate of the fixed annual sums paid out. The Committee will be asked to deal with the fares of the London Passenger Transport Board separately, and to hold public inquiries at which local authorities and representative bodies will have an opportunity of being heard. The


proposed terms of reference to the Committee will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what effect this increase in charges will have on the cost of food and of other elements that enter into the cost of living; and also whether it will not have a serious effect on the cost of our exports?

Mr. Barnes: With regard to the increase of 8 per cent. on goods train traffic, we have reason to believe that it will not appreciably affect the cost of production. With regard to the increase in passenger fares, that will not, in our view, substantially affect the general cost of living. With regard to the effect on food supplies, that will be adjusted by the present Treasury arrangement.

Mr. Hudson: May we take it that this is the first of many further increases that will take place in transport costs, as the Government increase their control over transport?

Mr. Barnes: The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the increases in transport costs have been relatively small compared with the general rise of prices in the community—the general increases of prices of goods and commodities. [An HON. MEMBER: "And wages."] That has been operating because of the very large sums paid into railway accounts as a result of Government traffic during the war. I think it is obvious to everybody that there has been a substantial cessation of Government traffic. It is desirable that as soon as possible transport, as an industry, should be able to pay its way, and be adjusted to normal conditions.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is the Minister aware that there has been not merely an alteration in the distribution of traffic, but -a diminution of service given by the railway companies? Does he think that having to travel standing on one foot in the passage between two carriages of a main line train that stops only at four or five stations instead of going straight through, can go on much longer in peace time? Is he aware that the increases will cause great disquiet? Finally, will the House have an opportunity of debating the matter before the increases come into operation?

Mr. Barnes: The question of debating the increases should be directed to the Leader of the House. I am not respon-

sible for determining the timetable of the House. On the question of general traffic facilities, overcrowding has been one of the factors obscuring the general economic position of railways during the war. A rapid transformation is taking place just now, and that is one of.the matters taken into consideration.

Captain John Crowder: In view of the very large increases in passenger fares, will the Minister now be able to restore the cheap day tickets?

Mr. Barnes: The House will remember that from time to time I have been asked Questions about cheap day fares and I have indicated that the matter will come under review. I think the House can now see that I was facing this problem, and that it would have been inopportune to deal with matters of that kind until the general rate structure had been brought more into conformity with postwar prices.

Mr. Stephen: In view of the statement about the increased charges that the public will have to pay, may I ask whether the Minister will arrange with the London and North Eastern Railway to increase the rate of travel on their suburban lines from what is evidently their present maximum, 15 miles an hour, to 20 miles an hour?

Mr. Barnes: That is a matter on which a Question can be put down for answer in the ordinary way.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware that the effect of the decision that he has announced will be far more adverse, from the inflationary point of view, than the aggregate of the tax concessions refused by the Chancellor in his recent Budget?

Mr. Barnes: The Noble Lord is quite wrong in assuming that there has been any refusal of tax concessions. The situation that we are facing in this proposed adjustment would have to be met either by the taxpayers or by the users of the railways. I do not think anyone could justify a policy of subsidising an industry like transport which, normally, should be able to meet its own expenses.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister not aware that many people in this country have not had a holiday for seven years and that pensioners and people in the lower income


ranges have been saving up for many months for the holiday season in order to visit relatives living at a distance whom they have not seen for years? Would he not consider postponing the increase in passenger fares, for, say, three months, until after the holiday sėason?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I regret that cannot adopt that policy. Every month more would make the situation increasingly difficult to grapple with. Railway accounts date from 1st January to 31st December. These increases will come into operation on 1st July. I am already in a deficiency of six months on these accounts, and the deficiency.will be met by the Exchequer. I cannot possibly delay the operation of this policy any longer.

Mr. Percy Morris: Do the new rates bear any reference to the financial arrangements now in existence between His Majesty's Government and the railways? Does the question of standard revenue enter into the discussion? Is additional money being raised for greater payment to the railway companies?

Mr. Barnes: Not for a greater payment, but to meet the sum of £43 million which is the Government's obligation to the railway pool account.

Mr. P. Morris: The standard arrangement is not being varied at all?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly not. I cannot vary the standard arrangement while it is under a Government controlled account.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the Minister whether the policy of increased railway fares was included in the Government's mandate?

Mr. Barnes: The policy that the services should economically pay their way has always been a part of our Socialist philosophy.

Mr. G. Lang: Does the Minister realise that there are many thousands of ex-Servicemen, without whose sacrifice the railways would not matter at all, who will this year be taking their families away for the first time for years? Are they not to be considered?

Mr. Barnes: All these matters have been considered, but ultimately we have to face the question of whether we are going to

run an industry of this kind on its own strength and stability, or whether we are going to subsidise it. The policy of subsidising transport cannot possibly be continued.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of the answers the Minister has just given, may I ask whether we can take it that a policy of subsidising the railways will not be followed in future, whether or not they are nationalised?

Mr. Barnes: I think the position that the Government are adopting at this moment—when it is quite clear what policy sentiment in all parts of the House would wish us to follow—is a clear indication that we shall follow sound economic rules.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the price increase in the rate charges is incomparably less than the increase paid to the men and in other costs of running the railways? Is it not essential that the railways should be run on an economic basis?

Mr. Barnes: That is the reason why I am submitting these proposals. The average overall increase of materials—

Mr. Speaker: That question is really hypothetical and has nothing to do with the subject.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that the Minister justifies this decision on the ground of the decrease of traffic, does he not consider that this increase in rates will lead to a further decrease in the volume of traffic?

Mr. Barnes: I have stated that the transformation of the account is due to the withdrawal of Government wartime traffic which, while I am unable to give accurate figures, has certainly been over £100 million a year. The industry is not yet able to replace that traffic, and I have had to deal with the situation as I have found it.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Sir Waldron Smithers rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think we should proceed to the next Business.

Sir W. Smithers: Am I allowed to say, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement, I propose to raise the subject on the Motion for the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is certainly allowed to say that. I am now about to call the next Business.

Controlled Railway Companies.
Existing addition.
Substituted addition.


Fares (other than workmen's and seasons)
16⅔%
33⅓%


Charges for parcels and miscellaneous traffic by passenger train


Workmen's fares and season ticket rates
10%
25%


Charges for goods train traffic
16⅔%
25%


Charges on railway-owned canals
16⅔%
25%


Charges at railway-owned docks
20%*
40%†


London Passenger




Transport Board.




Green Lines Fares
16⅔%
33⅓%


Charges for merchandise traffic
as Railway
for Companies.


* Certain coastwise traffic 7½ per cent.


† Certain coastwise traffic 15 per cent.

Following are the proposed terms of reference to the Charges Consultative Committee:

(a) London Passenger Transport Board.

I am directed by the Minister of Transport to request the Committee to advise him as to the best method of adjusting the fares on the railways and road services of the London Passenger Transport Board, and on such other railways as are covered by the definition of Railways of the Transport Board in paragraph 2 of S.R. & O. 1940, No. 2037, so that, for the year 1947, the balance of the net revenue account, prepared by the Board under Article 1 of the Railway Control Agreement, together with the appropriate

proportion of the balances of the net revenue accounts of Joint Committees, will approximate to the fixed annual sum £4835.705) payable by His Majesty's Government to the Board under that Agreement. The Minister wishes the Committee to hold a public inquiry and to hear thereat the representations of the Board and of any local authority of body representing the interests of passengers in the London Passenger Transport Area which may give notice of desire to be heard in such manner and within such time as the Committee may prescribe.

(b) Railway Companies.

I am directed by the Minister of Transport to request the Committee to advise him as to the best method of adjusting the charges made by the controlled Railway Companies and Joint Lines, considered as a whole, in connection with their railways (excepting such as are covered by the definition of Railways of the Transport Board in paragraph 2 of S.R. & O. 1940, No. 2037). dock and canal undertakings and collection and delivery services, so that, for the year 1947, the aggregate of the balances of the net revenue accounts prepared by the controlled Railway Companies under Article 1 of the Railway Control Agreement, together with the appropriate proportion of the balances of the net revenue accounts of Joint Committees, will approximate to the aggregate of the fixed annual sums (£38,633,000) payable by His Majesty's Government to the controlled Railway Companies under that Agreement.

In considering such adjustments the Committee are asked to take into account all relevant considerations and, while aiming at an equitable distribution of charges between the various classes or groups of classes of traffic, to have regard to the Government's policy of full employment and to the importance of maintaining adequate coastwise shipping services. The Minister wishes the Committee to hold a public inquiry and to hear thereat the representations of the Railway Companies, and of any local authority or body representing the interests of passengers or traders or other forms of transport which may give notice of desire to be heard in such manner and within such time as the Committee may prescribe.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business, be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 124.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.


Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Allighan, Garry
Ewart, R.
Lipton, D. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Fairhurst, F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col- M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Farthing, W. J.
Logan, D. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
Lyne, A. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Forman, J. C.
MoEntee, V. La T


Austin, H. L.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mack, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Ayles, W. H.
Gallacher, W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
McKinlay, A. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Balfour, A.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
McLeavy, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gibbins, J.
MaoMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Barstow, P. G.
Gilzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barton, C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W


Battley, J. R.
Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bechervaise, A. E
Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Benson, G.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.


Berry, H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Msdland, H. M.


Beswick, F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Hoywood)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Blnns, J.
Grenfell, D. R
Mitehison, Maj. G. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Grey, C. F.
Montague, F.


Boardman, H.
Grierson, E
Moody, A. S


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morlay, R.


Bowen, R.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gunter, Capt. R. J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exeh'ge)
Guy, W. H.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haire, Flt.-Lleut. J. (Wycombe)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Mort, D. L.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Moyle, A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Licut.-Col. R.
Murray, J. D.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nally, W.


Buchanan, G.
Hardy, E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Burden. T. W.
Harrison, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haworth, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Callaghan, James
Harbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hicks, G.
Orbach, M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hobson, C. R
Palmer, A. M. F.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Chater, D.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T


Chelwynd, Capt. G. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Cluse, W. S.
House, G.
Perrins, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Hoy, J.
Piratin, P.


Cocks, F. S.
Hubbard, T.
Popplewell, E.


Coldrick, W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Collick, P.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Price, M. Philips


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pritt, D. N.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Randall, H. E.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Atlercliffe)
Ranger, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Irving, W. J.
Rankin, J


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A-
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
John, W.
Robens, A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Deer, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Dodds, N. N.
Kenyan, C.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Driberg. T. E. N.
King, E. M.
Royle, C.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sargood, R.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Kinley, J.
Scollan, T.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Kirby, B. V.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, D.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A


Edelman, M.
Lang, G.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, N, (Caerphilly)
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Skeffington, A. M.




Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watson, W. M.


Skinnard, F. W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Solley, L. J.
Thurtle, E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sorensen, R. W,
Tiffany, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Timmons, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sparks, J. A
Titterington, M. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stamford, W.
Tolley, L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Steele, T.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Stephen, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willis, E.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Viant, S. P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stokes, R. R.
Walkden, E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Stross, Dr. B.
Walker, G. H
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)



Swingier, S.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Warbey, W N.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bind.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Watkins, T. E.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Haughton, S. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Head, Brig. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott. Stanley


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Boothby, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Raikes, H. V.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ropner, Col- L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Scott, Lord W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Snadden, W. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E-
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère R.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Draycon, Capt. G. B.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Vane, W. M. T.


Duthie, W. S.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Ward, Hon G. R.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
York, C.


Gage, Lt.-Col. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partiok)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Glossop, C. W. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Nicholson, G.



Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Nield, B. (Chester)

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), further considered.

CLAUSE 22.—(Death grant.)

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 23, line 33, to leave out from " any,"To "or,"In line 35, and to insert:
 body corporate or to any unincorporated association of persons.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would refer also to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, namely, in page 23, line 36, after " such,"Insert, " body or."The two are interdependent. As the Bill reads, the death grant will not be payable to any charitable or other association of persons whether corporate, or unincorporate, or to a local authority. The result of the Amendment will be that the Clause will read:
 A death grant shall not be payable to any body corporate or to any unincorporated association of persons.
That, we feel, is a much better form of words than that previously used.

Mr. Hugh Molson: I should like to express my indebtedness, and that of my hon. Friends, to the Minister for having carried out the under taking which he gave us on the Committee stage. I fully understand why it was necessary for there to be certain safeguards which were not included in the Amendment which we moved upstairs and I think, generally speaking; that the Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has just moved is entirely satisfactory, both in so far as it covers local authorities and also voluntary bodies of various kinds which, in a charitable way, take aged people into their homes. However, there are two points in connection with this, on which I should like to ask a question—

Mr. Lindgren: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I think he is just a little ahead, and that the remarks he is now making will be more appropriate on the Amendment to this Clause which seeks to add the following words to line 36:

(5) The cost, to such amount as may be prescribed, of the burial or cremation of any person by or under the direction of the council of a county or county borough, or by or under the direction of any such other association of persons as may be approved by the Minister may be paid to the council or association out of the National Insurance Fund if—
(a) the conditions for the payment of a death grant in respect of the said person's death are satisfied so far as relates to paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) and Subsection (3) of this Section; and
(b) no such death grant has been paid;
and where any sum is paid under this Subsection in respect of any person's burial or cremation any death grant subsequently paid in respect of his death shall be reduced by the amount of the said sum.

Mr. Molson: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that we were considering the first three Amendments together.

Mr. Lindgren: No, the first two.

Mr. Charles Williams: Then, if we are taking these two Amendments together, may I point out—although I quite realise that the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is pleased with this Amendment—that the Parliamentary Secretary read it out, but did not tell us precisely why the Government had accepted the change. I understand it is a good change because it is a change which the Opposition wanted, but we are entitled to know what the Amendment does, and how it affects both corporate and unincorporated bodies.

Mr. Lindgren: If the hon. Gentleman waits until we reach, the third Amendment, he will get the information he now desires. This form of words has been used because of the subsequent Amendment and we feel, from a drafting point of view, it is better phraseology than that which was originally in the Bill. Its effect is exactly the same, but it is a change of words which we feel is better for the purpose of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 23, line 36, after "such,"Insert "body or."—[Mr. Lindgren.].

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 23, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(5) The cost, to such amount as may be prescribed, of the burial or cremation of any person by or under the direction of the council of a county or county borough, or by or under the direction of any such other association of persons as may be approved by the Minister may be paid to the council or asso-


ciation out of the National Insurance Fund if—
(a)the conditions for the payment of a death grant in respect of the said person's death are satisfied so far as relates to paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) and Subsection (3) of this Section; and
(b) no such death grant has been paid;
and where any sum is paid under this Subsection in respect of any person's burial or cremation any death grant subsequently paid in respect of his death shall be reduced by the amount of the said sum.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) placed an Amendment on the Order Paper, which, in its general intention was supported from all sides. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I gave an undertaking that between the Committee and Report stages we would consider the matter and see whether or not we could give effect to the general desire of the Committee. This Amendment does in fact meet the promise which was made. It is to the effect that where there is the necessity of a burial of a person, either by a local authority or by an approved association, the cost of that funeral up to a prescribed amount shall be met from the death grant and if subsequently someone makes a claim, such sums as have been paid out either to the local authority or the association will be deducted from the death grant which was due. I call attention to the fact that the associations, which will be entitled to receive this, have to be approved by the Minister. I am certain that hon. Members will agree this provision is advisable, and I hope the Amendment will meet with the general approval of the House.

Mr. Molson: I will not repeat what I said earlier when I thought that this Amendment was being moved, but I will proceed to ask three questions about the drafting. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I put down an Amendment to insert the word " cremation "In this Clause. The hon. Gentleman took the view that there was no need for that Amendment as "cremation" was included in "funeral."I observe that in the Amendment he is now moving the word "cremation" appears as an alternative to "burial." He cannot be right in both cases. Either it was not necessary to add the word "cremation"To the Clause as originally drafted—although I think it would have been desirable—or it is undesirable that the word " crema-

tion" should be included in this case. Not only would it in that event be redundant, but any learned judge would imagine that Parliament in its wisdom had sought to draw a distinction between the disposal of bodies by ordinary funerals, and cremation by these bodies, corporate or unincorporated. The hon. Gentleman has gone slightly adrift with his drafting. I hope that at a subsequent stage he will include the word "cremation" as I proposed earlier. I believe it would have been better to have included it all along. I also ask whether he is quite satisfied with the propriety of the word "person in the phrase:
burial or cremation of any person.
I should have thought a "person" was only a living person, and that the word should not be used in this sense, unless there is to be burial alive.

Mr. C. Williams: May I venture to add a word on this rather difficult subject? For all I know this may be the first time the word " cremation " has appeared in a Measure of this kind, and the matter may not have been properly decided so far as the courts are concerned. Nor may it have been decided what the term actually means and how far it carries. It may possibly have a different meaning in Scottish law. An entirely new ruling might be given on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) cast doubts on the Government's use of the term, and his knowledge of these matters is of an extraordinarily high character. I was rather aghast at the use of the word "person," because it seems to me that as my hon. Friend says it can only refer to a living human being. But the word may appear in other Acts in this way. If so it is time that it was put right. It may be another Government slip which should be dealt with between now and another stage. The Parliamentary Secretary told me just now that he was going to explain all these matters. I shall have extreme pleasure on some occasion in reading out his explanation, to show how really muddled the Government can be when they set their minds to it.

Mr. Lindgren: I doubt whether I could have given the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) an answer which would have prevented the speech he has jus made. In answer to the hon. Member


for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), originally the word "funeral" was used. I am not an expert in English, but I understand that "funeral"Includes the disposal of the body by cremation, but that "burial" does not include disposal of the body by cremation. Therefore, as on this occasion we used the word "burial," we thought it advisable to use the word "cremation" because it is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the disposal of the body either by the normal way of burial, or the more scientific and up-to-date method of cremation, should be included.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Could the Parliamentary Secretary meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) by altering the wording to:
 burial or cremation of any body

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Disqualification or suspension for absence abroad or imprisonment.)

Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in page 30, line 7, to leave out from " servitude,"To the end of line 8, and to insert "Imprisonment."
As the Clause stands, except where regulations otherwise provide, a person would be disqualified from receiving any benefit if he is undergoing penal servitude, imprisonment, or detention in legal custody. The object of this Amendment is to strike out " detention in legal custody" and merely have the disqualification apply to penal servitude, or imprisonment. It appears to me, and I daresay the Minister would agree, that under the laws of the land if one is undergoing penal servitude, or imprisonment, one has, presumably been found guilty of a grave offence. But the Minister, or I, might be detained in legal custody and yet be as innocent as a babe unborn. It seems to me a pity that no distinction is drawn between detention in legal custody, and penal servitude, or imprisonment. Although I realise that detention in legal custody is not one of the weapons which His Majesty's Government would be using against other people, there might very well come a time when we have a Government which considered under some Defence of the Realm regulation detaining people with-

out trial as a valuable way of encouraging them towards the wishes of the Government of the time. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) has been running around to Russia and other places, and when I see him and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), some very odd ideas come to me at times. We have to look to the future.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member will not be in legal custody—it will be burial.

Mr. Raikes: If I should be detained in legal custody I should want to have my pension rights safeguarded.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silvermans: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) should have spoiled a good case by being facetious about it. It is a perfectly good case. There are forms of custody which are perfectly legal, without any penalty having been incurred by the person detained. There is no reason why such a person should be penalised, and I feel sure that my right hon. Friend never intended that he should be. It is only a question of drafting.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Perhaps I can clear up this point. We had a long discussion about this matter in Committee. The question was raised of the position of a man on remand pending trial. I am advised that it is essential to have in the Bill the words to which objection has been taken, because they cover certain kinds of cases. I will cite only one. I understand that a man who is committed to a criminal lunatic asylum is detained in legal custody. It is possible to meet the case about which hon. Members are worried, I said in Committee that I would look at the point raised about a man on remand pending trial, who is subsequently found not guilty. I can cover that case by regulation, and I will do so.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister mean it is simpler to meet the case in the way he suggested, and that the answer he has given is to excuse the taking of administrative action because it is easier to do it that way? My concern is that if we leave the words as


they are, instead of making them "or imprisonment", we are leaving to some future Minister, powers which might easily be abused. That is a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waver-tree (Mr. Raikes) referred in moving the Amendment. Perhaps the Minister could give a word of explanation.

Mr. Griffiths: This is a matter in which I must be guided by the advice given to me on the meaning of these phrases in law. I am advised that the proper phrase to describe a man committed to an asylum as a criminal lunatic is that contained in this Clause, and that the words are essential for this purpose. In Committee we had a discussion on whether the words "In legal custody " would define a man remanded for trial and subsequently found not guilty and released, and whether the fact that he was detained in custody would prevent him from getting benefit. I said that we could cover that in regulations, but I am advised that there are no words other than those in the Bill which could suitably be used to cover the point which I have already made. I have met the point which hon. Members in Committee urged me to meet. I can meet it by regulation and I propose to do so.

Mr. S. Silverman: I take it that my right hon. Friend is referring to the provision in this Clause:
Except where regulations otherwise provide,—
and that, to carry out his undertaking to cover the case we have in mind, the regulations will make provision accordingly.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I appreciate the argument of the Minister, but in this Clause the phrase " detention in legal custody," follows " penal servitude, imprisonment." On the face of Subsection (1) it looks as though detention in legal custody does not merely mean a case such as the Minister has mentioned, but one that belongs to the same class as penal servitude or imprisonment. If it covers what the Minister means, there is no objection to it, but I am not clear that that is so, as the Subsection stands.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 43.—(Determination of claims and questions.)

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to move—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member cannot move the next Amendment. That must be done by someone in whose name it stands on the Order Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I beg to move, in page 37, line 43, to leave out " may," and to insert " shall."
May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the following Amendment may be considered with this one?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I imagine that the two stand together.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: They do. Sir. In that case I shall also deal with the Amendment, in page 37, line 46, after " Minister,"To insert:
 or National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner or a tribunal presided over by the National Insurance Commissioner or a deputy Commissioner.
I do not propose to detain the House for long in dealing with these Amendments. The first is merely to make this Clause mandatory instead of permissive, and I hope that the Minister will accept that Amendment. The second deals with a rather different matter. As the Clause stands, there is only a right of appeal on a question of law from a decision which the Minister himself has made. We are seeking to insert in this Clause a provision that there shall also be a right of appeal to the High Court from a decision made by the National Insurance Commissioner. We are seeking to establish that there should be appeals from the National Insurance Commissioner, or a tribunal presided over by him, to the High Court. This is in keeping with the recommendations of the Commission on Ministers' powers, in which it was laid down that where there was a Ministerial tribunal there should be an appeal from that tribunal to the High Court. In view of the most important decisions which have recently been given in favour of claimants in connection with pensions appeals tribunals, I ask the Minister to accept the inclusion, in this Clause, of the words suggested.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to draw attention to the effect of the first Amendment. Subsection (1) of the Clause gives power to the


Minister to make regulations and he can deal with any question arising in connection with this Measure,
Including any claim for benefit, and subject to the provisions of the regulations the decision in accordance therewith of any such question shall be final.
So it depends upon the regulations. If the regulations are so framed, the Minister can completely oust any appeal to the High Court. It will depend on the regulations whether there is such an appeal or not. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the regulations shall be so framed that there must be a right of appeal to the High Court. The second Amendment follows naturally. In Subsection (3), it will be seen that various persons can decide a case— an officer appointed by the Minister, who can then refer it to a tribunal, and the tribunal can refer it to the National Insurance Commissioner or the deputy Commissioner. There is no further appeal from that; because apparently that is not the Minister's decision. As a result, there might be varying decisions by different national insurance commissioners, and varying decisions from various tribunals. It will be difficult to get uniformity if the High Court has been ousted, with the result that the law will be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the country, in accordance with the variations of the tribunals. There is a tendency, which is a bad growing modern practice, on the part of different Ministries, to oust the jurisdiction of the court. All we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to make sure that an appeal will lie.

Mr. McKie: I hope very much that whoever replies will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. I am sorry to say that it is not very often I agree with anything which emanates from the particular section of.the House associated with this Amendment and it is therefore pleasurable to me.to associate myself fully with every word which has been said by the mover and seconder. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. H.Morris)—

Mr. J. Griffiths: They will withdraw the Amendment in a minute.

Mr. McKie: I was particularly pleased to hear him point out just the kind of

irregularities that might easily arise in the administration of this matter if the permissive instead of the mandatory wording is adhered to. This raises a point of considerable substance. I am sure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr.S. Silverman) will agree that a tremendous number of disputed cases will be bound to arise from the vast machinery which the Government are setting up under the National Insurance Bill. We wish to be perfectly sure, so far as possible, that anomalies are cleared away and we hope we may have this mandatory provision. As the hon. and learned Member for Carmar then has said, there is no certainty that the answer given to appeals may not vary considerably all over the country. We do not want that. I am thinking particularly of Scotland, and I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr.Kirk wood) will agree with me—

Mr. Kirkwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman want to rope me into this?

Mr. McKie: It is because I want to have the hon. Member's support. I want him to speak on this Amendment and urge his Government to accept this modest but very vital proposal which will ensure that there will be, so far as possible—

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member would direct himself to the Amendment and not to inciting other Members of the House: to make speeches.

Mr. McKie: I apologise, Sir. Addressing the Minister through you, Sir, may I express the hope that he will be able to tell us, when he comes to reply, that he will accept the mandatory instead of the permissive appeal to the High Court or to the Court of Session in Scotland. That, I understand, is included in Clause 79. If the Minister did that, it would clear away our very reasonable fears and apprehensions with regard to this matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot resist the appeal made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I support this Amendment but I do not think it raises the wide points of principle about which he spoke. The general point of principle is conceded in the Clause. Questions of law ought to be referred to the High Court for decision. There is no dispute


about that at all. I understand the argument to be that it ought to be extended so as to make sure that a question of law will be referred to the High Court for decision wherever it arises and not only when it arises on a decision by the Minister. On that narrow point, I have pleasure in responding to the appeal made to me, and I hope the Minister will respond to the appeal made to him.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to say a few words in view of the fact that an attempt was made to bring my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) into this discussion. I think it is correct that this matter should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I remember on one occasion standing in the High Court with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. The experience that he then had satisfied him that neither he nor anybody else wants to go to the High Court unless it is absolutely inevitable or compulsory. In the case of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs it was compulsory. I suggest to the Minister that he uses his discretion and goes to the High Court as little as possible.

4.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that people should have the right to appeal from a tribunal under this Act?

Mr. Gallacher: I believe the Minister will use his discretion in such a way as to ensure that he will go to the, High Court when it is necessary.

Mr. Beechman: I require no incitement to make a few brief observations in support of the Amendment. I believe this is a matter which is fundamental to the purposes of good government in a democratic country, that, in all cases, there should be. available recourse to the courts. Although I think it is of the utmost value that there should be domestic tribunals, those domestic tribunals will function satisfactorily and their decisions will only be accepted by the people of this country if it is realised that behind them, there is the majesty of our law, before which we are all said to be equal.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I think it is right to say that this matter was thoroughly examined and decided in Committee—

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: No.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The whole point was that apart from any questions of law which might have to go to the Minister there should be no right of appeal from the tribunals. The avowed purpose of the new machinery was indeed to cut out the law courts, to put it quite bluntly. That was deliberately decided upstairs. This matter was examined fully and an attempt was made by an Amendment, on the same lines as the one we are now discussing, to introduce other machinery which it was the purpose of this Statute to exclude. I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of that now, but it was overwhelmingly decided that it was not desirable, under this new form of social legislation which this Measure introduces. It was decided upstairs after full discussion that this ought not to be included and that there should not be a right of appeal. I ask the House to reaffirm what was done in Committee.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has said, there have been two discussions upon this matter on two separate Bills. First, we had a long discussion upon this problem when we considered the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill upstairs and again on Report stage. Also there was a discussion in the Committee on the National Insurance Bill. On every occasion I have asked the Committee and the House, as I ask the House now, to reject this Amendment

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the reasons why we have brought this forward now is that since we have discussed it upstairs, on both Bills, there have been important decisions from the pensions appeal tribunal, and also the case of Dr. Hennessy and the General Medical Council.

Mr. Griffiths: I have read the letter in "The Times."I have considered this matter very fully and I believe we are perfectly right in sticking to the machinery provided by the Bill. Whatever may be said about the general machinery of the law, when we were considering the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill and the Social Insurance Bill there was general agreement that some machinery other than the machinery of


the law, would be more suitable for this purpose. That is where we begin. Therefore, we have provided machinery for the determination of disputes in regard to claims under this Bill. The applicant, if his claim is turned down, will have the right to go to a tribunal presided over by an independent chairman sitting with two assessors who will be appointed by two panels representative of the people affected by this scheme. There will be an appeal from that tribunal to a Commissioner.
What we have done, therefore, is to provide our own machinery for the settlement of disputes of this kind. That machinery, we think, is better than the existing machinery. It will be quicker to arrive at a decision, will be less costly, and we are certain that it will give more general satisfaction. We have had this Bill under discussion in the House and in the country for four months now, and I am sure I am speaking for most of the people affected by it when I say that there is general satisfaction that this method of judging and settling disputes is better than the existing method.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not think anybody will dispute that or would want to upset the machinery set up under the Bill for settling disputes as such. We are not concerned about that. What this Clause is concerned with is not a method of settling disputes but a matter of settling questions of law, and nobody thinks that they can be settled anywhere else than in the Law Courts.

Mr. Griffiths: So far. as that is concerned, there are questions of law as well as questions of fact. It is our view that they ought to be decided finally. There will be far more important questions of law on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill than—

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that the chairman of the tribunal will be a judge?

Mr. Hopkin Morris: How will the Minister discriminate between these questions of law which he is seeking to refer to the High Court and those questions of law which he will not?

Mr. Griffiths: If hon. Members will listen, I will endeavour to make it clear. First, there are questions which fall to

be decided by the tribunal—questions of benefit. The tribunal will make a decision. There is an appeal against the decision of the tribunal to the Commissioner. When appeals go to him, they may be simple, straightforward appeals on which the Commissioner will be able to arrive at a decision. It is true that these appeals which may go to the Com missioner may raise difficult questions of law and also difficult questions of fact. I explained what we propose to do under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and said that, when there are difficult questions of law, the Commissioner will be the presiding judge, who has to be a lawyer of eminent standing — the standing of a judge— assisted by two deputy Commissioners, who are also lawyers of eminence in appeals on points of law. Therefore, the decision will be made on difficult points of law, whenever they are raised, by the tribunal presided over by a Commissioner and two deputies, all three being lawyers, and we feel that that is ample provision for arriving at a decision on any points of law.
There will also be cases in which questions of fact have to be decided, and there again, I think, we have provided an admirable method by which the courts will solve problems of that kind. The Commissioner will sit with two law assessors to advise him upon questions of fact. In regard to that, I am not disposed to allow appeals from that decision to the High Court and thus mix up the new machinery with the old. If we want to do that, we had better scrap this machinery and go back to the old. We have provided this new machinery, and I know, from my own experience, that it is a better way of settling disputes than the existing method and that it will give satisfaction. There are questions which the Minister has to decide—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is a question of going to the Court of Appeal, and, possibly, to the House of Lords as well.

Mr. Griffiths: I know it means that, but, on these questions to be decided by the tribunal and the Commissioner, we have provided machinery that provides, in our view, a satisfactory way of dealing with them finally. The final decision will be given by the tribunal, presided over by the Commissioner. On other questions on which the Minister has to decide, there is provision in these cases that there can


be appeal to the courts on points of law, and there is a question there, but I feel that, on such questions as the payment of death grants, it is better in claims of this kind, where there is more than one claimant to have the question decided by a tribunal rather than in court. We have discussed this matter at great length in connection with both these Bills, and I

am convinced that the machinery we provide is the best for the purpose. I hope the House will accept that view and reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word ' may ' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 265: Noes, 146.

Division No. 187.
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fairhurst, F.
McEntee, V. La T


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Farthing, W. J.
Mack, J. D.


Alpass, J. H.
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull. N. W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S


Attewell, H. C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Austin, H. L.
Gallacher, W.
McLeavy, F.


Awbery, S. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Ayles, W. H.
Gibbins, J.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Gibson, C. W
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Balfour, A.
Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Marquand, H. A


Barstow, P. G.
Gooch, E. G.
Martin, J. H.


Barton, C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mayhew, C. P.


Battley, J. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Medland, H. M.


Bechervaise, A. E
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Belcher, J. W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington, Wing Comdr. E. R


Benson, G.
Granted, D. R
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Berry, H.
Grey, C. F.
Montague, F.


Beswick, F.
Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, O)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Guy, W. H.
Mart, D. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nally, W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hamilton, Lleut.-Col. R.
Meal, H. (Claycross)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Burden. T. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Callaghan, James
Haworth, J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H


Chamberlain, R. A
Herbison, Miss M
Orbach, M.


Champion, A. J.
Hobson, C. R
Pargiter, G. A.


Chater, D.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Peart, Capt. T. F


Clitherow, Dr. R
House, G.
Perrins, W


Cluse, W. S.
Hoy, J.
Piratin, P.


Cobb, F. A.
Hubbard, T.
Popplewell, E.


Cocks F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, M. Philips


Collick, P.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J


Collindridge, F.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rushelme)
Pursey, Cmdr H


Calman, Miss G. M
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Randall, H. E.


Comyns, Dr. L
Irving, W. J
Ranger, J


Cook, T. F.
Janner, B.
Rankin, J.


Cooper, Wins-Comdr. G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reeves, J


Corlett, Dr. J.
John, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Daggar, G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Robens, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kinghom, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Royle, C.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Sargood, R.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Kirby, B. V.
Scollan, T.


Dodds, N. N.
Kirkwood, D
Scott-Elliot, W


Driberg T. E. N.
Lang, G.
Segal, Dr. S.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Dye, S.
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Edelman, M.
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.




Skinnard, F. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamatow, E.)


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchestar)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Warbey, W. N


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Watkins, T. E.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watson, W. M.


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Wells, W, T. (Walsall)


Solley, L. J.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Tiffany, S.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Sparks, J. A.
Timmons, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Stamford, W.
Titterington, M. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Steele, T.
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Futham, E.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Stokes, R. R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Strachey, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willis, E.


Stross, Dr. B.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Stubbs, A. E.
Viant, S. P.
Wise, Major F. J.


Swingler, S.
Walkden, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Walker, G. H.



Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nicholson, G.


Aitken, Hon. Max
Hare, Lieut-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Nield, B. (Chester)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Harvey, Air-Cemdre A. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Astor, Hon. M.
Haughton, S. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Osborne, C.


Barlow, Sir J.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beechman, N. A.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott. Stanley


Bennett, Sir P.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boothby, R.
Hope, Lord J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Hurd, A.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Carson, E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Joynson-Hicks, Lf.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Spearman, A.C. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Spence, H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mac Andrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S)


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Eccles D. M.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W. M. T.


Erroll, F. J.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mellor, Sir J.
York, C.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. H. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Granville, E. (Eye)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Lieut.-Colonel Byers and Mr. Bowen.


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.

CLAUSE 46. —(Administration of benefit.)

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in page 41, line 8, afer " payment,"To insert:
 and for the payment of sickness * benefit, maternity benefit, widows' allowance, death grant and such further benefits as the Minister

may decide to or in respect of a member of an approved society by and through the approved society of which the insured person is a member on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in the regulations.
I am moving this Amendment formally. It has already been discussed on the proposed new Clause dealing with friendly


societies. This Amendment would include all the approved societies within the Government scheme.

Mr. Oliver Poole: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House Noes, 264.divided: Ayes, 144; Noes, 264.

Division No 188].
AVES
[5.5 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Nield, B. (Chester)


Aitken, Hon. Max
Haughton, S. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Head, Brig. A. H
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Astor, Hon. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beechman, N. A
Hollis, M. C.
Prescott. Stanley


Bennett, Sir P
Hope, Lord J.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon, R. S. (Southport)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecolesall)


Bowen, R.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Sanderson, Sir F


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'flr'n W'ld'n)
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Carson, E.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Spearman, A. C. M


Cole, T. L.
Langford-Holt, J.
Spence, H. R.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'l'n, S.)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Ecclet, D. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Turton, R. H.


Erroll, F. J.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W M. T.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A. G
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lard


Graham-Little, Sir E.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AVES.


Hare, Lieut-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Nicholson, G
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Boardman, H.
Coldrick, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Colliok, P.


Allen, A. C. (Besworth)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Collindridge, F.


Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Colman, Miss G. M.


Alpass, J. H.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Comyns, Dr. L.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cook, T. F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G


Attewell, H. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Corlett, Dr. J


Austin, H. L.
Burden. T. W.
Cove, W. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Daggar, G.


Ayles, W. H.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Barstow, P. G
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Barton, C.
Chamberlain, R. A.
Deer, G.


Battley, J. R.
Champion, A. J.
Delargy, Captain H. J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Chafer, D.
Dodds, N. N.


Belcher, J. W.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Dumpleton, C. W.


Benson, G.
Clitherow, Dr. R.
Dye, S.


Berry, H.
Cluse, W. S.
Edelman, M.


Beswick, F.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Blyton, W. R.
Cocks, F. S
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)




Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ewart, R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Fairhurst, F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Farthing, W. J.
Logan, D. G.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Forman, J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Freeman, Maj J. (Watford)
Mack, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gallacher, W.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McKinlay, A. S.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Gibbins, J.
McLeavy, F.
Solley, L. J.


Gibson, C. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gilzean, A.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Soskice, Mat Sir F.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stamford, W.


Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Steele, T


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Martin, J. H.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Granville, E. (Eye)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stokes, R. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Medland, H. M.
Stross, Dr. B.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Millington,. Wing-Contdr. E. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Swingler, S.


Grey, C. F.
Montague, F.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Grierson, E.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Murray, J. D.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nally, W.
Thurtle, E.


Hannan, W. (Mary hill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Tiffany, S.


Hardy, E. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Timmons, J.


Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Titterington, M. F.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Toller, L.


Haworth, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oldfield, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hobson, C. R.
Orbach, M.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
Walkden, E.


House, G.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Walker, G. H.


Hoy, J.
Perrins, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hubbard, T.
Piratin, P.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Popplewell, E.
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Watkins, T. E.


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Price, M. Philips
Watson, W. M.


Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Pryde, D. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Irving, W. J.
Randall, H. E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Janner, B.
Hanger, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Rankin, J.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


John, W.
Reeves, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Keenan, W.
Robens, A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


King, E. M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr, E.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Willis, E.


Kinley, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wills, Mrs. E A.


Kirby, B. V.
Royle, C.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Sargood, R.
Wise, Major F. J.


Lang, G.
Scollan, T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lavers, S.
Scott-Elliot, W.



Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Segal, Dr. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Leonard, W.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bine.

CLAUSE 47.—(Interim payments, arrears and repayments.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 42, line 30, after "as,"To insert:
being a child of the family, or the wife or husband, or an adult dependant, of the first-mentioned person as having been.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will also include in my remarks the next two Amendments on the Order Paper. In Committee, a number of hon.

Members, in particular the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown), the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel. Byers), and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), expressed the view that the existing wording of Clause 47 was not easy to understand, and, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I gave an undertaking that the Clause would be looked into in order to


ascertain whether it could be made more easily understood. That has been done, and these three Amendments have that effect.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for rendering this Clause intelligible, which he has done with great skill. It corresponds exactly with the request which we put to him, and I am very much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 42, line 31, after "regulations,"Insert "relating to overlapping benefits."

In line 33, leave out from " decision,"To " and,"In line 34, and insert:
either—
(i) that the said other person is himself entitled to benefit for that period; or
(ii) that a third person is entitled to benefit for that period in respect of the said other person in priority to the first mentioned person;"—[Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 42, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where a person has received sums on account of an allowance under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, to which by virtue of this Act he was not entitled by reason of his being entitled to a guardian's allowance subsequently awarded (whether in respect of the same or a different child), those sums shall be treated as paid on account of the guardian's allowance and the amount thereof shall be repaid to the Treasury out of the National Insurance Fund 
During the discussions in Committee a request was made, which will be in evidence later on the Order Paper, that family allowance payments should be excluded from account when any adjustments of other benefits were being made. During the course of the consideration of the promise I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend in that connection, it was found advisable to make an alteration in the wording of Clause 47 because of the difference between payments likely to arise under the Family Allowances Act and the guardian's benefit under this Bill. The additional words made it possible for additional payments to be made as and when there is a variation between a child drawing an allowance under the Family Allowances Act and that child, or another child of the family, becoming entitled to a guardian's allowance under the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As I understand this matter, it is necessary for the Minister to include words which provide for the necessary moneys to pass between the Exchequer and the Insurance Fund, because the sources of those two payments are different. I want to be satisfied that, in moving this Amendment, the point of which we fully accept, the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the words make it possible for the necessary transfers of money's between the two funds to take place.

Mr. C. Williams: I understand that as far as family allowances are concerned the position has been entirely met, but it is just possible that there may be some other kind of allowance, such as a pension, for example, and can the Government give any assurance in that regard? I did not have the advantage of hearing either the Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend upstairs, and I should like to know whether any pension or other allowance paid to the family, apart from the family allowance itself, is ruled out under these conditions. I do not want to find that there is a loophole of any kind, especially in regard to war pensions. It is rather an important matter and I want to be sure about it before we allow the Government to put in the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: This Clause has no reference whatever to any matter other than that of the payment of a guardian's allowance and an additional allowance that might become payable under the National Insurance Bill for a guardian's allowance over and above the family allowance which is now payable. I have tried to make it clear that it only arises where there is an amalgamated family. There may be a family which has only one child in it and it may take in a child of another family, which would then become entitled under the Family Allowances Act to a payment of 5s. a week. Both parents of that child might die and the child become an orphan, and thereby be entitled to a guardian's allowance. The guardian may for the time being carry on taking the family allowance, not appreciating that the guardian's allowance was payable, or there might be inquiries to determine whether the guardian's allowance was payable. All that this Clause does is to make it possible for the additional moneys to be paid in order that


the parent or the person receiving the family allowance previously can accept the guardian's allowance and become disqualified from receiving the family allowance. In fact, the family allowance would cease to be payable, the orphan's allowance being excluded from the Family Allowances Act.

Mr. C. Williams: This point, then, has nothing to do with pensions, which are not concerned in this at all?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, that question does not arise.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Recovery of sums by deduction from benefit.)

Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move, in page 42, line 42, to leave out from the first " under,"To the second "The ".
In moving this Amendment I propose to deal also with the following consequential Amendment. It seems from what the Parliamentary Secretary said a moment ago that he has gone some way to meet us in this matter, but not, I think, the whole way. The last Clause we discussed lays down that in certain circumstances certain benefits are recoverable from the recipient. Clause 48 provides that such benefits can be recovered from family allowances. The object of these two Amendments is to cut out family allowances so that in no circumstances can overpayments be recoverable from them. When discussing this matter upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary gave a fairly sympathetic answer and we had a good deal of support in all parts of the House, particularly from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould). The first point is that family allowances are no part of this insurance scheme and no insurance. qualification is required to draw them. Therefore, as far as I can see, there is no more reason why it should be possible to distrain on them in order to get moneys back under this Bill than there is to distrain upon a war pension. The second, and I think stronger, argument is that family allowances are paid to the mother in trust— that is the point—for the child, and something which is given in trust for one purpose should not be distrained upon

for other purposes. I very much hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this Amendment, in which an important moral principle is involved.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
This seems to be a most unfair provision and I am very surprised that it ever came to be included. I do not quite know how those who compiled the Bill ever let it get in, for great emphasis was laid during the Debates on the Family Allowances Act on the fact that the money was for the use of the child and not for the parents. Under the provision which is now in the Bill one is going to take away what belongs not really to the parents but to the children, which will make it extremely difficult for any mother to allocate her weekly resources. In the expectation of receiving 5s. a week for each child she will already have thought out ways of spending that money week by week, and suddenly she may hear that the next week, or during the following few weeks, the money will not be paid because of some overpayment which may have been made to her. I cannot conceive anything more dreadful and I hope the Minister will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: As was outlined by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) this subject was discussed in Committee when, in response to many requests from all sides, I undertook on behalf of my right hon. Friend to look at the matter again before the Report stage. We did so, and we put down an Amendment to comply with the promise I made, but an Amendment having been put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we thought we would like to make some concession and we refrained from again putting down our own Amendment. I have therefore great pleasure in accepting the Amendment which is now moved, and, as an indication of blessings to come, the subsequent Amendment, if it is moved.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the Amendment moved from this side of the House, supported, as he says, from various other quarters. I think it improves the Bill. It was an unfair provision that the family allowances should be taken into account. I feel sure that mothers, and parents generally, will


be grateful to the Government for meeting us on this point and making their Bill a better one.

Mr. C. Williams: When a Bill is improved by an Amendment such as this, and when the Conservative Party manages to prevail over the overwhelming weakness which the Government have shown throughout this Bill, should not we rise and thank the hon. Member for having accepted our Amendment? I am glad this Amendment has been accepted, and I think even some hon. Members opposite will be glad that those hon. Members who had the courage to fight this point in the Committee have now prevailed on the Government to give way, because apparently the original Bill was too weak even for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In these days, when the Conservative Party does not get any major victories, I have no objection to their getting a minor victory like this.

Mr. C. Williams: The Party opposite will be out soon.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 10, leave out from " Act,"To " and,"In line 11.—[Mr. Birch.]

CLAUSE 49.—(Inspectors.)

5.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 43, line 32, to leave out " employed," and to insert "Insured."
In a sense, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment, because the object of it is to bring the language of this Bill into conformity with the analogous Clause of the Industrial Injuries Bill. I have called it a drafting Amendment, but I should inform the House that it does, in point of fact, make a difference in principle, to a certain extent, because it includes among the people whom the inspector, under the terms of this Clause, can examine, persons who are insured, not merely because they are employed persons, but because they are self-employed or non-employed persons. Therefore, at first blush it does rather widen the powers. I would want the House to know that. At the same time, I would remind the House that the analogous Clause in the Industrial Injuries Bill was very fully and anxiously examined when it was being

discussed on the Report stage. The present Clause has also been subjected to a very searching examination during the course of the passage of this Bill through the Committee stage. As a result of that examination the powers of the inspectors have been considerably curtailed, in the sense that, as the Clause now stands, with the Amendments which have been introduced into it, inspectors can only examine a person—never mind into what category that person falls—if it can be shown that they have some reasonable ground for examining him. That very salutary safeguard having been introduced into the terms of the Clause, and the inspector's powers having, by that Amendment, been defined, I ask the House to say that there is no harm in widening the term " employed "Into the term "Insured."The only object of it is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Industrial Injuries Bill.

Mr. Molson: This is entirely in accordance with the general policy of the Bill. It is extending it to include people who were not previously included in the field of insurance. It is absolutely logical and quite right. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we regard it as an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 39, after " person,"Insert " and any insured person."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 43, line 41, at the end, to insert:
 for the purpose of ascertaining whether contributions are or have been payable, or have been duly paid, by or in respect of any person, or whether benefit is or was payable to or in respect of any person.
An Amendment in almost identical terms as this was put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) during the Committee stage of this Bill. The Government then indicated that they were not in a position to accept that Amendment in the form in which it was put down because of a slight defect, with which I will not bother the House now. An undertaking was given that with that defect remedied the Amendment would be put down on the Report stage, and, accordingly, it has been put down. The object of the Amendment is again to limit and define the powers of the inspectors. It is in conformity with the


result of the general discussion which took place on the Report stage of the Industrial Injuries Bill and on the Committee stage of this Bill.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I should like to express my appreciation of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has done on this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(General provisions as to prosecutions under Act.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 47, line 10, to leave out Subsection (5), and to insert:
 (5) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act, the wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence, whether for or against the accused:
Provided that the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence or, in giving evidence to disclose any communication made to her or him during the marriage by the accused.
This Amendment entails a word of explanation, and possibly entails recounting the main burden of the discussions which have taken place on this Clause. Clause 53 (5) was designed to bring it about that the husband or wife of a person accused of an offence against the terms of the Bill should be a competent witness. In order to bring that about, the words which at present appear in Subsection (5) were incorporated into the Bill from the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. They were anxiously considered by the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and the doubt was expressed that the effect of the Clause might be that the husband or wife might be made, not only a competent witness but a compellable witness. On behalf of the Government I gave an assurance that there could be no danger of that, because the words had been the subject of a decision in another place to the effect that they would not make the husband or wife compellable, although they did make him or her competent to give evidence. Therefore, that doubt was set at rest.
Then a further point was made—and this is the point we have endeavoured to meet by the present Amendment—that the privilege which was said to exist should be reintroduced into the Bill, namely, the privilege which protects a husband or wife from being under an obligation to disclose, in the course of proceedings, communications made to

him or her by his or her husband or wife, as the case may be. It was pointed out that the Subsection did not contain any words which were apt to reaffirm that privilege. That again was pat forward by an hon. Gentleman opposite in a very carefully reasoned argument. An undertaking was given on behalf of the Government that that point would be very carefully considered, and an endeavour made to meet the point. It has been considered and, as the result of considenation, the Government have come to the conclusion that the best way of making certain, not only that the wife was not compellable but only a competent witness, but also of preserving the privilege in respect of marital communications, was to recast the whole Subsection. There were various technical drafting reasons for that decision with which I need not trouble the House. The net result is, we have recast the Subsection with the object of bringing about those two results.
The first result is, therefore, that the husband or wife is a competent but not compellable witness in proceedings against his or her spouse; and the second result is that the privilege is preserved which enables a husband or wife to decline to disclose a communication to him or her by his or her spouse during marriage. In these circumstances, the desire having been expressed from both sides of the Committee that the privilege should be retained and reaffirmed, and as the recast Clause does that, I ask the House to say that it would be proper for the Bill to be amended in the terms of the Amendment which I have moved.

Major Digby: As, supported by hon. Friends, it was I who moved the Amendment in Committee, I should like to say how grateful I am to the hon. and learned Gentleman for this Amendment, which seems to me to cover the point I had in mind.

Major Legge-Bourke: I also welcome the decision of the Government, but may I put one question to the learned Solicitor-General? In Committee the hon. and learned Gentleman felt, I think, that this provision might queer the administration of other Acts if it were put into this Bill. Reference was simply made to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898. Can we have an assurance that it will not do so?

Mr. C. Williams: This raises a point of considerable importance, and that is the


point that a married man or woman shall not be compelled by law to give evidence against his or her spouse. Now, on this point the Government have given way to what, I believe, is the general opinion of the House and of the community as a whole. In thanking the Government for doing so, I wish to point out to the House two important points. First this had got into the Bill. It was in the Bill as it then stood. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, at any rate, if it was not in the Bill, the Clause was drafted in such a way that there was doubt on the matter.

An Hon. Member: There never was doubt.

Mr. C. Williams: If it was not in the Bill, and if there was not any doubt whether the husband or wife might be compelled, what is the matter with the Bill? I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has done, and for clearing up the matter and keeping the right of a husband or wife in the way that it should be kept.

The Solicitor-General: If I have permission to reply to the points made, I should like to say with regard to the first point, that I did refer to technical drafting considerations. We were anxious to ensure that other Acts would not be put into doubt as a result of any wording we used in this Bill, and we are quite satisfied that the wording we have chosen in recasting the Subsection will avoid that possibility. In reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) may I say I think he is under a slight misapprehension. Suppose the Amendment were not made, and the Clause remained as it is now. There would be no doubt at all— it would not be possible to compel a husband or wife to give evidence against his or her spouse. The point that was made, and the point that we are now seeking to remedy in recasting the Clause is this: we want to make sure that the privilege which protects a husband or wife from having to disclose communications made during the course of marriage is preserved, and it is that additional point we have met in recasting the Subsection.

Mr. C. Williams: I do not wish that there should be any misunderstanding of what I said. I fully accept what the Solicitor-General has said. If I did not put it quite so clearly as he did that

is because I have not his command of legal language.

5.45 P.m.

The Solicitor-General: I did give way and so perhaps I may continue to speak. There were two separate points. One point was already provided for in the Bill as it stood. That point was this: we wanted to bring it about that a husband or wife, although competent, should not be compelled to go into the witness box and give evidence; and as the Clause stood without the Amendment that was provided for. But then there was this additional point. We wanted to make sure that if a husband or wife did go into the witness box, and elected to give evidence, nevertheless, he or she could claim the privilege in respect of communications made to him or her by his or her spouse. That is the additional point we have provided for in the recast Clause.

Mr. Peake: I intervene only to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he is doing and to ask, in view of the fact that we are keeping the provisions of this Bill and those of the Industrial Injuries Insurance Bill parallel, whether steps will be taken, before that Bill returns to this House from another place, to include similar alterations in it?

The Solicitor-General: That is so.

Mr. Scollan: Did the Solicitor-General mean that the reading of this Bill is that a husband or wife may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or the defence? Does it mean that they will not be compelled to give evidence?

The Solicitor-General: This is the second time that I have to ask the leave of the House to speak again in order that I may reply to that point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and learned Gentleman in charge does not require leave to speak again on the Report stage of a Bill which has been committed to a Standing Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The position is this. A husband or wife can now go into the witness box and give evidence, and can, give evidence as to all relevant matters; but if somebody asks a question about what his or her spouse said, in a


confidential way in marital communications, the witness can refuse to answer that question.

Mr. Scollan: Before we leave that, I do want to be clear on this point. The Amendment says:
The wife or husband of the accused shall be competent to give evidence, whether for or against the accused:
Provided that the wife or husband shall not be compellable either to give evidence, or, in giving evidence to disclose any communication. …
If it does not mean the husband or wife can be compelled to be a witness of anything but such communications I do not see the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is a difficulty here. If such a witness were compelled to give evidence on every other matter except that concerning such a communication, that would be a very grave matter. It certainly looks rather like that.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Married women.)

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, in page 50, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(b) for conferring on a woman who, at the time of her marriage, has been in insurable employment for not less than ten years, the right to continue to be insured for a full retirement pension in her own right at sixty years of age by paying the reduced rate of contribution set out in the First Schedule to this Act.
This question was raised in Committee and was very thoroughly discussed with my right hon. Friend; and as a result of that discussion he agreed that a point of substance had been raised, and that between then and the Report stage he would have a look at the matter to see whether he could meet the point. I am sorry that there is nothing in his name on the Order Paper to meet the point. I can only hope that the reason is the same as that which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous Amendment, and that it means that my right hon. Friend is waiting his time, to tell us he is accepting our Amendment as being adequate. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove some of the discouragements which exist against married women insuring under this Clause. On more than one occasion some of us have suggested that it is made very hard for married women to continue their insurance under the Bill. They are

discouraged from doing it, although my right hon. Friend has denied this and has told us that for the sake of the Fund he is anxious that as many people as possible should insure. We are drawing attention in this Amendment to the disadvantages which face married women who do not continue in employment.
Most young women—and we are encouraging them to do so—go into insurable occupations under Class I from the time they leave school until they are married, which may be from the age of 16 to 26, or even later. They may have 10 years of contributions under Class I before they marry, when for the time being they give up their jobs. When they are married they can continue to be insured under Class I by paying not only their own contribution, but those which were paid by their employers, or, alternatively, they transfer to Class III as non-employed persons. If they transfer, they have to pay 3s. 8d. per week to continue in insurance, and the only benefit which accrues to them in addition to the benefits they would have had in any case as married women insured by their husbands' contributions, is an old age pension of 26s. a week at 60 years of age. They are merely paying for the difference between 16s. which they would have received by way of the insured rights of their husbands and 26s. a week which they get in their own right at 60 years of age.
For many of these women it is an important consideration to keep in insurance. After all, affairs are very precarious these days. There is no permanent security in married life. One of a number of things may happen to a husband, but I will deal only with the economic ones. The husband may be out of work. It is not unknown in my area for a woman to be working and the man to be out of work. A woman may desire when she goes back to insurable employment to keep up her full insurance rights, but she can only keep continuity of insurance by paying at the high level of 3s. 8d. when she is out of employment. I suggest that as an insurance proposition no woman would wish to pay 3s. 8d. per week to get the difference of 10s per week at the age of 60 between the pension she would' receive when her husband retires. It is not an insurable proposition worth considering and it is not on any actuarial basis.
The effect of the Bill at present is to make it not worth while for women to


make these contributions. It is out of keeping with the Minister's assurance that he wants married women to be insured, and to be included as much as anyone else in this scheme. There is a psychological aspect as well. At this time when women are being encouraged more and more to go into employment, whether they are married or not, they should feel that they have the backing of this Scheme behind them. The maintenance of insurance rights should be linked with the insurance rights of employment, and women should not have to take a very bad bargain at a certain period to provide for continuity. I ask the Minister to tell us that as a result of his consideration he will accept this Amendment.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I beg to second the Amendment.
As it stands this is a bad Clause from the point of view of married women, and it would be considerably improved by the inclusion of this Amendment. When we were discussing in Committee the position of married women generally the attitude of the Minister in the early stages was rather flinty, but towards the end of the proceedings he had become much softer. We thought we would see an Amendment on the Order Paper in his name, and it is a disappointment to us that he has not put one down As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has pointed out, a married woman who has been working from the time she left school and has made a number of contributions to the Fund is taken out of Class I when she marries and becomes an appendage to her husband. She has to accept his protection The intention of the Amendment is to put the position straight.
There is a much more important point than that which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn. When a large number of professional and business women marry they give up their employment for a short time. It is their intention to go back to their profession or business, and they do not want to drop out of insurance while they are unemployed. For that reason they wish to have continuity of insurance. The Government are constantly impressing upon married women the importance of going back to their work or profession, but this Clause is a discouragement to them, and I ask the Minister to look at this matter again.

It is bad business for a woman to pay 3s. 8d. over a long period of years to gain what is, in fact, only 10s. when she comes to draw her pension. I hope that the Minister will remember all the things which he said upstairs, and that he will remember the promise he more or less gave to reconsider this matter. I hope that he will give us some assurance that a woman who has been in an insurable occupation for ten years before she was married will be regarded as an insured person in her own right, and that she will be able to continue her insurance and obtain her pension at 60 years of age in her own right, instead of having to be a appendage to her husband.

6.00 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: Speaking as a bachelor, I am very much in sympathy with what the hon. Ladies opposite have said on behalf of married women. Marriage is a very serious matter, and I do not know why such a serious obligation should be added to in this way, or why a woman should lose these rights. A constituent has suggested to me that all women should get married and no men. Like-many desirable schemes, that is impossible; and, as so many good ladies get married, it seems to me wrong that this benefit should be denied to them. Although it might be unwise to carry this matter to a Division, I think there is real matter of principle involved.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We had a discussion in Committee about the problem raised by this Amendment, although the proposal then put was not the proposal now embodied in the Amendment. This is not a question of my being hard or flinty or soft. In this Bill we provide for insurance under one of three classes. The position is that everyone will be insured under one or other of those classes, unless it is provided otherwise. The major exception is one which I made myself, at the request of hon. Members on all sides of the House, which is relevant to this matter. We provided in the original Bill that persons whose income was below £75 per annum, 30s. a week, should be allowed to claim exemption from being insured under the scheme under classes 2 and 3, that is, if self-employed or non-employed. I was pressed in Committee to increase the £75 to £104, and I accepted that. The position now is that the income limit below which persons can


claim exemption from payment of contributions and from becoming insured persons is £2 a week, and, apart from that, everyone is insurable under Classes I, II, and III.
A woman who has been in industry and who has, therefore, an insurance record, and who decides to get married and to give up industry, if she wants to preserve her insurance record and her insurance rights may do so by continuing to pay contributions as a non-employed person, and she thus not only has her right to benefit as a dependent of her husband, but also preserves her own independent right of benefit. Therefore, a woman who has done 10 years' work and, on marriage, gives up work, has to make up her mind whether she will continue her insurance in her own right. By paying 3s. 8d. a week, which is the non-employed contribution, she qualifies at 60 for a pension of 26s. a week, whether her husband is then qualified or not. If her husband qualifies for a pension at 65, and she is then 60, they both retire, she will get 16s. as pension. The husband will get 26s. and she will get 16s. If the husband dies, the wife's pension goes up to 26s. automatically.
The suggestion was made in Committee that when a woman, in the circumstances described in the Amendment, goes out of work, she is certain, if her husband is entitled to a pension, of a pension of 16s.' at 60, and that I should make provision, if possible and practicable, by which, when the woman gave up work and stayed at home, and became a non-employed contributor, I should create another class, for that is what it means; the creation of another class under which she would insure, not for a pension of 26s. in her own right, but for a pension of 10s. I have looked at that and other suggestions which have been put to me. I have had pressure put on me by hon. Members who represent certain parts of Scotland, where there are many crofters, and by hon. Members who represent my own country, in which there are many small farmers, and their suggestions would mean the creation of a little scheme within this major scheme. It would mean providing another scheme with a lower rate of contribution and a lower rate of benefit. Quite frankly, I have decided that I ought not now to accept those proposals.
This Amendment is associated with an Amendment which my hon. Friends have put down to the Schedule, and I would point out to them that the amount of the contribution which they put down for insertion in the Schedule is completely inadequate to cover the cost of their proposals. If a woman is to be insured, when she gives up work on marriage after 10 years, for a pension of 26s. in her own right at 60, the cost of the benefit will have to be met in a lesser number of years. But a person may go on being an employed contributor until within five years of pension able age, and in a scheme of this kind you have to average out what it will be. Some will pay for one year, some for five years and some for 10 years. If you permit someone to continue as a non-employed person to insure themselves for a pension of 26s. at 60 years of age in their own right, what is the contribution that must be provided, on the average, knowing that some will come in the non-employed class at 16, some at 20, 30, 40 or 55. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment.
An. essential part of this scheme from the very beginning is that we provide for one rate of benefit. If we depart from that, it is quite clear that we are going to have this scheme, which provides this uniform rate of benefit, and a smaller scheme, which provides a smaller rate of benefit—two schemes with obvious options. I examined it without any prejudice—indeed, why should I have any prejudice against it? My desire is to see as many people as possible covered by this scheme. I examined it—and I hope in this connection that I will not be misunderstood—from the point of view that the married woman's contribution of 3s. 8d. may be paid by her husband. My concern is with people of less than £2 a week. Obviously they cannot pay that contribution. I have had deputations on the subject, and I have met hon. Members who have discussed with me the difficult problem of the crofter and the family farmer on the hillside of Wales. I have tried to find is there any way in which this could be met? My conclusion is that there is no way except the creation of another scheme inside this scheme— to allow someone to contract out of the main scheme into another with smaller benefits and smaller contributions.
On the Third Reading I shall have something to say about the considerations which were impressed upon me and some of the conclusions I have come to. There are limitations on what we can do in an insurance Measure. At the moment we have got to let the scheme run as it is for five years. Then we shall review the whole of it, and see how many gaps are left, how many people are unable to keep up the payments and how many people are unemployed. As the Amendment is framed it suggests that the benefit is paid for by the individual's own contributions, but hon. Members must remember that the 3s. 8d. contribution is not fixed on its own. The contributions in general are fixed in relation to the whole of the benefits, and, therefore, if I were to accept an Amendment of this kind I must warn the House that I would have to go back and recast all the contributions. The Amendment refers to married women who after 10 years give up their work. It is implied in the Amendment that such women, when they give up their work, have created a reserve for their own pensions which ought to be used for them. That is not how the scheme is worked, but everyone is contributing towards the reserve, which will be used for the various benefits. During the Committee Stage I promised that I would consider this matter and have done so. I did not commit myself further. I do not think that this can be done and I regret that it cannot be done. If it could be done I would have done it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I cannot help saying at once, that I found the Minister's reply disappointing. I agree that he did not give in Committee any undertaking that could have been regarded as binding, or as implying that he would put a proposal on the Order Paper in the sense desired. I acquit him of a breach of an undertaking of any kind. However, when I look at the words which were used I think one might have been pardoned for supposing that if, in the end, he felt compelled to reject this idea, he would have given good and compelling reasons for doing so. I should like to read the sentences. I think I was responsible for making the suggestion which led to the Amendment now being discussed by the House. When my right hon. Friend came to reply he said this:

I assure the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne that I will look at what he has suggested, which seems to me to be a new proposition. I am sure he is not expecting me to reply to it straightaway. If I gathered correctly what he said, he asked me to look at the possibility of making provision by which a married woman when leaving an occupation after a period of years can have the opportunity of contributing in order to qualify for the full pension instead of something else.

Mr. SILVERMAN: To qualify for the difference between the full pension and what she will get.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: As the wife of an insured contributor?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Yes.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I will look into that. The hon. Member will not expect me to give an undertaking one way or the other this morning. I shall have to look into it and see what the repercussions will be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee "A, " 2nd April, 1946; c. 458–-9.]
I hope my right hon. Friend will not think I am in any way unfair if I say that one would have hoped today that he would have told us what the repercussions would be. I expected him to say, "These are the repercussions, and they are so serious that I am compelled to reject the proposal." He has not said anything like that. He has not indicated any serious repercussions, and I should have hoped, therefore, in the absence of any such repercussions that he might have found it possible to accept this.
Let me state again what he is asked to do and why he was asked to do it. It is an important point and I hope I will not be too long, but I think it ought to be understood'. My right hon. Friend said: " You cannot have options." But you can have options; you must have options and there are options in the Bill. The question is not whether you have options or not, but whether you have right options, fair options and equitable options. Take the case of a girl going into a cotton mill, in Lancashire perhaps, at the age of 14. They used to go in much earlier. One of the Government's principal difficulties in the cotton industry is that they could not get juvenile labor because the positions were so bad. A young girl goes straight from school at the age of 14 into a cotton mill, and she becomes an insured contributor right. away. She pays the full employed person's contribution from the age of 14. Let us suppose she gets married at the age of 26. She has then paid the full


employed contributor's contributions for 12 years. My right hon. Friend in his Bill will give her nothing' for that.

Mr. William Adams: What?

Mrs. Manning: No, nothing.

Mr. S. Silverman: Nothing whatever. What does he say to her in this Bill? He says, " When you come out of industry and marry you have two options, the choice of two courses, or rather three."

Mr. J. Griffiths: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make the position clear. He said emphatically that that girl would get nothing. That might be taken as meaning that that girl would get no benefits. That girl will get benefits from the very first day she enters employment. For the first time in her life and for the first time in the history of this country a single woman will get the same benefit as a single man. Moreover, at the age of 18 she becomes an adult for the first time.

Mr. Silverman: I think that is quite right, and I was going to say so. I hope I did not say anything to suggest that she was not fully insured during those 12 years. She is fully insured for sickness and for unemployment benefit, and she is fully insured up to 26 for the old-age pension. What I said and what I repeat is that if she comes out of industry at the age of 26 because she is married, she gets no further benefit whatever from the contributions she has made and that is true. The options she has are these: First she can continue, if she likes, as a full contributor, non-employed. She can pay both the employer's and employee's contribution. But I am sure my right hon. Friend would not advise her to do that, because she would be paying far more than she could afford, and would get very little for it. Or, she can say, "I will not give you another penny," and if she says that she gets, in virtue of her husband's insurance, at the age when he becomes entitled to retire, 16s. a week.

Mr. Lindgren: I am certain my hon. Friend wants to' be fair, but the fact is that the 16s. is not obtained wholly by her husband's contribution. Some of it is met from the actuarial pool formed from the contributions which she makes be-

tween the time of her entry into insurance, and the time of her exit from industry, on marriage.

Mr. Silverman: I concede that at once. All the contributions and benefits are the result of actuarial calculations. But I am comparing one with another to see whether there is a fair result as between one class of person and another. I am not suggesting that there is anything non-actuarial about the matter; I am saying that if this woman pays not another penny she will get 16s. So will the woman who becomes married at any age, who has never been in industry, and who has never paid a penny. That cannot be denied, and I hope nobody will attempt to deny it. The married woman who has paid her contributions in full for a dozen years, and pays nothing in future, will get exactly what a woman would get if she had never been in industry, and had never paid a penny.
There is a third course. The woman can say, "I will pay you 3s. 8d. a week, and for that I will have all the rights of a self-employed person. That means that I need not depend on my husband's insurance, and that I need not be content with the 16s. I will get my retirement pension of 26s. in my own right at the age of 60, instead of 16s." What is she gaining for that 3s. 8d.? Two things. First, the difference between 16s. and 26s. when she or her husband retires and, second, she gains it in her own right at the age of 60, and does not have to wait until her husband retires. Consider that case with the case of the woman who has never been in industry, and who has never paid a penny piece in contributions. She, too, will get 26s. at the age of 60. Is it not clear that in the one case the woman pays 3s. 8d. a week for 26s. at the age of 60, and that in the other the woman pays 3s. 8d. a week for the difference between 16s. and 26s? That is an anomaly and an inequity, and there is no justification for it of any kind. Indeed, no justification has been attempted. My right hon. Friend says, "That would be creating a special class, paying a different kind of contribution and receiving a different kind of benefit." But if it is fair to do it why not do it? My right hon. Friend knows that when he thinks a thing is fair he does do it. He has just done it for the sake of the self-employed person, in respect of sickness benefit. He


has, in that case, created a special class
of contribution—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am not creating a special contribution. All I have done is to put the self-employed on the same basis as everybody else, and increase their contribution.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend has created a special contribution in order to put them on the same basis.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Silverman: An increased contribution must be special

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Silverman: If an increased contribution is not a special contribution, then a reduced contribution is not a special contribution. My right hon. Friend can have it which way he likes. If he accepted the Amendment he would not be creating a special class; in altering the rules he is creating a special class. Either both or neither are special classes. He has made an alteration in benefit by altering the contribution. I think he is quite right—and I supported him—and I see no reason why it should not be done here.
My right hon. Friend has said repeatedly that this is an insurance scheme, and must be dealt with as such. So be it. In an insurance scheme there must be equal contributions for equal benefits. I have demonstrated that you have here equal contributions for unequal benefits All you can do is either to increase the benefit or reduce the contribution. My right hon. Friend says, " You have not provided enough money." Well, if we have not let him produce his actuarial calculations, and we will accept his figures. But when he says that those figures will be the same figures as now, I cannot accept that. I would like to examine the figures very closely before I did, because it seems impossible mathematically to arrive at a calculation that it will cost exactly the same amount to pay 16s. as 26s. That is what the Minister means when he says that contributions will have to be the same in order to get that made up. I do not think my right hon. Friend has made out his case. This is not a world-shaking matter, and I recognise—and I am not complaining— that in the endeavor to have this Bill on the Statute Book, and in operation quickly, it is inevitable that there will be

a number at anomalies that may be corrected at any time. I would rather have a lot of anomalies and get the main scheme than wait until we have cleared all the anomalies, which would mean keeping people waiting in the meantime. I am not complaining, but when a patent anomaly has been discovered before the Bill gets on to the Statute Book why in the world not correct it?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Griffiths: If I accepted my hon. Friend's argument I should not have a scheme at all. If I were to decide how much each separate section ought to get on the basis of its own contributions this scheme would be wrecked. I am bringing railwaymen into this scheme. They might say, "The scheme is unsound and unfair because you are compelling us to pay benefit for people who will be unemployed, whereas, by the terms of our contract we have a guaranteed week."They might say that they ought not to pay unemployment contributions because they have a guaranteed week. They have a very strong case, but if I were to accept that case, it would wreck the scheme. This is a universal scheme, into which everybody has to come as a contributor or a dependant, unless excepted by reason of the income limit. The contributions of all the contributors are pooled to provide these benefits. If we started to dig out one section of contributors and see whether they would get back exactly what they contributed, it would kill this scheme. The scheme would not be workable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has referred to a wife who will qualify for a 16s. pension, and he wants to give an extra 10s. The Amendment on the Order Paper seeks to give the wife 26s. at 60 in her own right. The figure of 3s. 8d. which we have arrived at is an average. It may be that a young woman starts work at 14 years of age and leaves work at 26 years of age, and then has to pay for the remaining years 3s. 8d. a week in order to get a pension of 26s. On the other hand, someone may go right out of class one at 58 years of age, and still pay only 3s. 8d., and get the 26s. at 60. We have had to make an average. It is true that the contributions are high, but they are high because the benefits are high. They are the contributions that are required to give benefits on this scale It would be possible—I do not say it would


[Mr. Griffiths.]
be impossible, and it might even be practicable—to provide, side by side with this scheme, a scheme which permitted lower contributions because it provided lower benefits.
Reference has been made to the self-employed. All that I did in their case was to deal with an administrative problem. It was a question of reducing their waiting period and making it the same as that of everybody else. The benefit remains the same, and in order to have that benefit for the extra four weeks, they have to pay 5d. extra contribution. I have examined carefully every proposition that was made in the Committee, with a desire to meet the points that were put to me, but I could not accept this Amendment, which would ruin this scheme.

Mr. C. Williams: I listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who spoke with great force about the position of women who marry after having paid contributions for 10 years and think that they lose all of them. Obviously, on the surface, there would seem to. be a case for voting in favour of the Amendment. I listened to the remarks of the Minister. Nothing would be easier than for me to say a great deal on the value of uniformity, but I am convinced, by what was said by the Minister and by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who in the last part of his speech completely reversed the arguments used in the first part of it, that if we once began at this stage to go into these details, however important they may be, we should never get the main benefits of the Bill, which I happen to want. I urge upon the hon. Ladies that it would be in the best interests of the scheme that this Amendment, which cannot be practicable at this stage, should be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 69.—(Power to make further consequential and transitional provisions, etc.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Birch.

Mr. O. Poole: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Apparently you do not propose to call the Amendment to Clause

67 in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and a similar Amendment in the names of several hon. Members opposite. In view of the very great importance of those two Amendments, I wonder whether you would indicate the reason you do not propose to call them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The explanation is that Mr. Speaker has not selected them.

Mr. Birch: I beg to move, in page 62, line 8, at the end, to insert:
 Provided that before making any such modifications in or winding up any such scheme" as aforesaid, the appropriate Minister or Department or the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, as the case may be, shall consult with the persons affected by the scheme.
Under this Clause, the appropriate Minister or the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, as the case may be, is given power to modify all types of existing pensions schemes. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that no scheme shall be modified in this way unless full consultation has taken place with all those affected. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed on the question of the modification of existing pensions schemes. Questions have been raised with regard to teachers, employees of local government, railways, public utilities, and so on. When we were discussing the matter in Standing Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex (Captain Gunter) asked for a categorical assurance that there would be no interference with existing schemes without the agreement of both sides, and the Parliamentary Secretary said that full consideration with both sides might not be always appropriate, because in some cases the management was not joint. I feel, however, that in an unusual case of this sort it is right that both sides, whether the management is joint or not, should be consulted before anything so fundamental as a pension right is modified. In his reply in Committee, the Minister said it was certainly his intention that consultation should take place. If that is his intention, I see no reason why it should not be written into the Bill. There is no reason why he should hide his good intentions under a bushel, and, therefore, I ask him to write this into the Bill and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
This Clause gives very sweeping powers to the Minister to modify or wind up various pensions schemes. We all agree that it may be desirable in some cases to wind up these schemes, because the continuance of them might lead to hardship, and in some cases it might not be possible for those concerned to go on paying the necessary premiums; but I think it is most important to add the words of the Amendment to ensure that the persons affected are consulted. Surely, it would be wrong, if the majority of those affected wished the scheme to continue, to close it, contrary to all their wishes. One would feel that this was being done merely to suit a Government which is very anxious to put everything on paper and make everything look tidy, adjusting everything and everyone to its plans. I would not like to think that would occur under this Clause, and, therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: As both hon. Members opposite have said in their very fair observations, the matter was discussed very fully in Committee and it was also the subject of discussion during the Second Reading of the Bill. On the latter occasion I said, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that this National Insurance Bill in no way affects any existing superannuating scheme, pension scheme, insurance policy, or similar arrangement, and that it was the hope of my right hon. Friend that every fund and scheme which now exists will continue to exist in the same shape and form as at present. We realise nevertheless that modification might in fact be necessary in the case of certain schemes, since there is a limit to what a given wage can carry in insurance premiums.
The schemes concerned are governed by the rules of the scheme or the fund to which the persons belong, and this Bill does not interfere in any way with those rules, but there is power for those who decide by agreement on the modification of a scheme to obtain that modification through the appropriate Government Department, whether it be the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education or, in the case of a private pension fund, the Registrar of Friendly Societies. My right hon. Friend is in entire agreement with the intention of those who moved this Amendment, but the wording is a little too vague. We are advised that as the

Amendment stands it would make it possible—even where there had been agreement between employers and employed in an industry—for a dissident few to hold up the adoption of a modified scheme agreed upon by a large majority. There has been consultation and I can say on the authority of both the Treasury and the Registrar of Friendly Societies, that in any modification that is considered or proposed representations which are made will be considered and there will be opportunity for consultation prior to the framing of any regulation. On that assurance of ample opportunity for full consultation for the interests concerned, I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite will withdraw their Amendment. As I have said, we are in full agreement with their intentions and are seeking to obtain the same end.

Mr. Birch: In view of that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.

CLAUSE 76.—(Regulations and orders to be laid before Parliament.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 69, line I, after " fifty-nine,"To insert " section sixty-two."

Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. it was indicated to me unofficially, Mr. Speaker, that the Amendment to Clause 76 of a similar character which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) was likely to be called, and I am wondering whether you have overlooked it.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that if I called this Amendment the other could be discussed at the same time. There are, I believe, four Amendments on the Order Paper on the same point.

Mr. Griffiths: This is the Clause which makes provision by which certain regulations under, this Bill shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution of the House before coming into operation. Others will be laid and can be prayed against in the normal way. In Committee we had a long discussion on this matter and on an Amendment, partly on the lines, of that which now stands on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman


opposite—the one, Mr. Speaker, which you said we might discuss on this Clause. I listened to that discussion but indicated that I could not accept the Amendment; nor do I propose to accept any of the Amendments which have just been mentioned if they are called.
I promised to consider whether it was not desirable and essential that the provisions of Clause 62, as it is now—it was Clause 61 in the Committee stage—should not he subject to affirmative resolution. I am now moving to insert Clause 62 as being one containing regulations which will require the affirmative resolution of the House. I do so with one proviso, and as I wish to be frank with the House I make this clear now. Clause 62, if it were brought into operation after the appointed day, would be a Clause made under the new scheme and, therefore, if my Amendment were accepted, the regulations under Clause 62 would be subject to the affirmative resolution of the House.
It may be, however, that we shall be faced with the necessity of bringing Clause 62 into operation before we are able to bring the main scheme into effect. We should do that in the same way as is envisaged for other provisions. For example, I propose to bring the new rate of retirement pensions into operation in the autumn of this year. I shall do this under the transitional powers provided in Clause 69, and whatever I do of a transitional nature under this Clause is done by regulations which are not subject to affirmative resolution but will be laid in the normal way. While, therefore, I move this Amendment to insert Clause 62 as being one which will require affirmative resolution under the new scheme, I think it is only fair to the House that I should make it known now that, if the Government should feel it desirable to bring the Clause with regard to extended unemployment benefit into operation before the appointed day for the main scheme, they would have to do so under Clause 69, the regulations thus not being subject to affirmative resolution.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman moves to bring the new Clause 62 within the ambit of the Clause which provides for an affirmative resolution before regulations can be approved. We take no exception to that addition to Clause 76.

Never has there been a Bill under which so many sets of regulations were to be made. This Bill, as originally designed, would have run to several hundred Clauses, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, with their passion for streamlining everything, have cut it down to a much smaller compass. There is an innumerable mass of matters which are to be dealt with by regulation under this Bill, but which, in any precedent hitherto observed, would have been dealt with by substantive enactment.
Clause 76 provides for affirmative resolution in the following four cases: affirmative resolutions are necessary to approve regulations disqualifying persons from benefit for misconduct; affirmative resolutions are necessary for the regulations applying the Clauses of the Bill to mariners and married women respectively; and an affirmative resolution is necessary for the Clause providing for compensation to displaced officers. There are other matters of very great substance where we say the affirmative resolution procedure should be adopted. The question, for instance, of overlapping benefits, which in fact means disqualifying persons from certain parts of the benefit to which they otherwise would be entitled because they are already drawing benefit under another Clause. When I was a member of the last Government we spent many months trying to work out the circumstances in which benefits could be regarded as overlapping. There are innumerable cases which will occur to hon. Members on all sides of the House. The regulations will be of supreme importance and great complexity.
I, therefore, wish that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to provide that these Regulations should be brought before the House automatically, because they will be of such importance that the House will want, I am sure, to consider them in very great detail. There is the overlapping between industrial injury benefit and unemployment benefit, and between the Serviceman enjoying Service pension and industrial injuries benefit, and sickness benefit under the Bill. There are innumerable cases which will arise in practice. I am sure the House as a whole will want to examine the matter. I have mentioned the main cases. These seem to us to present just as strong a case for the affirmative resolution procedure as the regulations which provide for dis-


qualification from benefit for misconduct. I therefore express the wish, while accepting the inclusion of Clause 62, that the right hon. Gentleman has not said the last word on the affirmative Resolution procedure, covering the other cases which I have mentioned.

Mr. O. Poole: I am very disappointed at the remarks made by the Minister. I would like to remind him of what happened during the Committee stage and to draw his attention to the special report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders published in 1944. Many of the proposed regulations under the Bill will go much further than the suggestions in the report. That was the point of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he. moved his Amendment in Committee. Replying to him, the Minister said that this was a very important matter and that there was a fair case for including some of the regulations which have not been done before, for the affirmative resolution procedure. It is particularly disappointing, in view of that fact, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee which the Minister undertook to study, that he has been able to include only Clause 62. I ask him therefore to consider carefully what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said. I hope this will not be the Minister's last word upon this very important matter. We do not wish to clutter up the procedure of the House with unnecessary affirmative resolutions, but we hope the Minister will keep an open mind on the subject.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have now considered this matter very carefully. The conclusion to which we have come, after full consideration, is the one which I have mentioned. We are taking by regulation very great powers indeed. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that we have also taken extra special precautions about that matter, because we are setting up an Advisory Committee. All the regulations will go before the Advisory Committee, who will examine the regulations in draft and can invite persons to give evidence before them either orally or in writing. Everybody in the country can get a chance to express his view upon the regulations before they are presented to the House. Although we are taking great powers

which would normally be asked for in a Bill, we are setting up the Advisory Committee which will listen to criticisms and comments upon the regulations before they reach Parliament. We need not clutter up the procedure of the House with affirmative resolutions, I agree. I have looked at this matter very carefully indeed and I think it is desirable that we should proceed to include this Clause.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: From what the Minister has said he recognises the extent of the proposed legislation by regulation and is putting it off to an Advisory Committee. Surely by so doing he is deliberately causing Parliament to delegate to an outside body the powers which are vested in it. The Minister said he proposed to do by regulation, what normally would have been done by Bill, and what he proposes to do by regulation he will do with the approval of the Advisory Committee. Instead of bringing the regulations to Parliament, he will be taking them to the Advisory Committee. In that way, the last word on the matter will be removed from Parliament.

Mr. Griffiths: Perhaps I did not make my meaning clear. I am sorry if that is so. The Minister who proposes to make regulations with regard to, say, overlapping benefits, will submit them to the Advisory Committee, who will publish them. The proposals will become known. When the regulations are published, persons affected by them can make representations to the Committee either in writing or orally. The Advisory Committee will send the regulations back to me, with a report, which I shall publish. The regulations will be laid on the Table, and can be prayed against in the usual way. The final word in each case is with Parliament.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: That statement is rather more reassuring than the statement which the Minister made in the first instance. It seems to suggest, however, that a filter has been introduced between the Minister and Parliament. It is an undesirable precedent which I hope the Government will not pursue.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 74, line 12, after " person,"To insert:


for any reference to the council of a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to the town council of a burgh.
This Amendment is consequential upon one already accepted to Clause 22, in regard to the payment of death grant. It is to cover local authorities in Scotland which correspond to county boroughs in England.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MEMBERS' EXPENSES

Ordered:
That the Report from the Select Committee on Members' Expenses be now considered.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient—
(a) that provision should be made, as from the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six, for the payment of salaries to Members of this House—
(i) at the rate of one thousand pounds a year, except in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as a Minister of the Crown, an officer of His Majesty's Household, or an officer of this House or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;
(ii) at the rate of five hundred pounds a year in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary less than five thousand pounds a year as a Minister of the Crown, or in receipt of a salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household or as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;
(b) that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to Members of this House;
(c) That Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a committee to advise him on the application of the rules and practice governing the payment of traveling expenses of Members of this House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when traveling on the official business of this House;
(d) that provision should be made for enabling Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their parliamentary duties."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now arrived. I think it is.regrettable that he was unable to be here before. I stepped into the breach to keep the discussion going pending his arrival; now that he has arrived I shall not detain the House any longer at this stage.

7.1 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I must apologise to the House if I was beaten in the race by a short head. We are now about to deal with matters relating to our own affairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to make a long speech. I gather that it would be for the general convenience if I were, at this stage, to summarise in one short statement both the proposals in the Motion and the proposals in the Ministerial Salaries Bill, the Second Reading of which is to be taken later. I think that is generally thought to be the most convenient way of proceeding. We would then have a discussion in which any matter might be raised upon either section of these proposals. Following the discussion, we should then hope to get the Second Reading of the Bill formally or with a Division, if desired—but without further Debate. The dates, I would remind—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not clear from what the Chancellor has said whether he intends or desires to discuss at this stage the alterations in the Members' salaries and the increases in Ministerial salaries. I rather apprehend that there is a view that it would be desirable to discuss those matters separately.

Mr. Speaker: It would be rather inconvenient to discuss them separately. We are, after all, discussing the Report of the Select Committee, and the Second Reading and the Motion are both covered by it. It would be inconvenient to have to debate subsequently the increase of salaries of junior Ministers when it could have been debated in the first discussion. I think it might be for the convenience of the House to have a general Debate, and I should then propose to call the Amendment. We could then proceed to discuss the Bill. I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if we had a general Debate now and, although it is not usual to discuss a Bill which is coming on, I think I might.


make an exception on this occasion with the general agreement of the House.

Mr. Dalton: I am only anxious not to take up too much time and I thought it would be economical in time to make a short statement covering the whole subject. This question of the salaries of Members of Parliament and other kindred matters was discussed up to a point in the Coalition Government but it was felt that, with a new Parliament shortly to be elected, the matter should be left over until the new Parliament met. The present Government looked at the question again and we felt it would be very much better for a Committee of the Members of the House to look into the question quite frankly, without any direct lead from the Government as to what was desirable. Therefore, on 15th November last a Select Committee was appointed, and it issued its Report on 6th March. On 30th April, with the authority of the Cabinet, I made a statement in the House of the Government's proposals, which in substance and on the great majority of points at issue, follow the recommendations of the Select Committee.
We are very grateful to the Select Committee for their work, and I am glad that the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous. Upon the Select Committee there served some Members of considerable experience of the House, and also some young Members who brought to the discussions the freshness which is appropriate to new arrivals, and between them they agreed on a number of proposals. Substantially the Government accept those proposals, and—I think my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) will agree with me—the Government are stating their view and propose to offer guidance to the House, but since this is a matter which concerns the House as a whole, and not only one section, it would not be appropriate for Whips to be put on in the ordinary way. It will be open for Members to vote as they think right and proper, and my function is simply that of offering reasons why, in the Government's view, these proposals should be accepted.
I will run over the points in the Motion. We propose in the first place, to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that the salary of the general body of Members of

the House—I am not speaking of Ministers—should be raised from the present figure of £600 to the figure the Select Committee propose—£1,000 a year. We propose that all these changes in rate of remuneration should date from the beginning of the financial year—1st April— which is most convenient from the point of view of accounting, and notice of our intention to propose that was given when I made my statement on 30th April. The first proposal, therefore, is that what I may call the standard salary paid to Members, should be raised from £600 to £1,000 a year. The Government think, having read the Report of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee have reached a reasonable balance here, that in view of the many claims now made upon Members in respect of incidental expenditure, incidental to performing their duties here, the increasing need for secretarial assistance and the like—it is healthy that it should be so—the increasing claims made by constituents on Members; and having regard to other matters relevant to considering what is a reasonable rate of remuneration, we think the Select Committee have got it right, and we accept their proposals.
In the second place, we propose that in the case of those who are Members of the Government, who are Ministers with salaries less than £5,000 a year or who are in receipt of salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household, or as Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension in respect of past services as Prime Minister, they should not have an increase in their Ministerial or official salary but that they should, being Members of the Commons House, be entitled to draw £500 a year, that is to say, half the new Member's salaries. If one likes to put it this way, in future any Member of this House becoming a Minister at a salary of less than £5,000 a year, will be deemed to retain half his private Members salary, and will be paid that £500, in addition to the existing scale of salaries paid to Ministers as such.
I will now emphasise the one point at substance on which the Government do not recommend the House to accept the proposals of the Select Committee. The Select Committee proposed that, both in the case of the Private Member and in the case of the Ministers affected by these


[Mr. Dalton.]
arrangements they should receive £500 freed automatically from Income Tax. We do not think that would be a good arrangement and we have reached that view not only on the merits as we see them, but also in the light of what we gather to be the general opinion of hon. Members in a number of different parts of the House. Therefore, we propose that in respect of the increased salary of £1,000 a year to Private Members, and in respect of the increment of £500 to Members of this House who are also Ministers, over and above the £ a year which is already deemed to be expenses and free from Income Tax, the existing arrangements should continue exactly as they are now; that is to say, the individual will be required, if he seeks relief from Income Tax over and above-the £100 which is automatically free, to make his case like any other citizen in the ordinary way. I think that is better. I quite appreciate the Select Committee's arguments in favor of the other plan, but the Government think this is definitely a better way of doing it. We hope that the House will, to that extent, agree to a departure from the recommendations of the Select Committee.
These are the two major points. There are one or two other matters which I wish to state to the House. I am dealing now with the matters in the Motion. The Motion proposes that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to hon. Members. This really means the facility of season tickets for Members traveling daily between their homes and this House. Already, in fact, facilities have been granted, and I think the plan is working well, whereby any Member who undertakes that it is his intention to travel between his residence and the House of Commons four times a week at least, should be entitled to obtain a season ticket. His intention may not be exactly carried out, if he is sick or otherwise engaged in business, for instance, and his residence is not defined with great exactitude. We are prepared to leave it to determination by common sense. Clearly, a Member resident in Newcastle would not travel between his residence in Newcastle and the House of Commons four times a week— at least this would be a very unlikely state of affairs. If a Member were so odd in his habits as to wish to

do this, it is not ruled out, but of course it is not a practical case.

Mr. McKie: He could sleep in the train.

Mr. Dalton: If he liked to he could— over the wheels all the time.

Mr. McKie: It would be in Order?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but it is unlikely that any one would wish to put himself in Order in that way. If anybody were to reside at Brighton, for example, there is a good train service from there to the canter of London and he would be entitled to use season ticket facilities That is what we propose and we propose further, under paragraph (c) of the Motion, that Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a Committee of Members of this House who should advise him on the rules and practice governing the payment of traveling expenses of Members of the House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when traveling on the official business of the House. I want to make this clear because, when my announcement was first made, perhaps there was some defect of clarity in it. This relates of course to subsistence allowances, payable only when a Member is actually traveling on the business of the House as a whole or on. some committee of the House as a whole.
The case which I gave when I made my previous announcement was that of the Estimates Committee which may set up a sub-committee to advise on, shall we say, the Air Estimates. In such cases, some hon. Members may travel, in agreement with the Air Ministry, to airfields and other establishments to look at them and talk to those in charge on the spot. In such a case they would be entitled to expenses and subsistence allowances, and from time to time matters may arise which it is convenient for you, Mr. Speaker, as the arbiter of these questions, to have the advice of a small group of Members from whom you would select the advice you need. The Government think that would be a very practical step, and the Treasury are quite agreeable to it. We would not wish the Treasury Ministers—neither my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary nor myself—to sit on the Committee, but we would be quite prepared, for an experienced official of the Treasury to attend to give an opinion or evidence on any matter, and no doubt,


Mr. Speaker, some of your own staff— the authorities of the House as they are commonly called—would also be available for consultation, though the Committee itself would consist of Members of the House. I think such a Committee is not likely to meet at all often, but its existence would provide a useful procedure.
Now I come to Members of another place. This is outside the scope of the Select Committee and it would have been outside their terms of reference to consider it, but representations have been made on behalf of Members of another place that some of them find it difficult in these days to travel constantly, sometimes long distances, from their residences to the other place. Therefore, wishing to be fair to all, we have thought it right— representations having come to us through the usual channels connecting this and the other place—that provision should be made—it will have to be supported later on by an Estimate which can be debated in this House if desired—to enable Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their Parliamentary duties. The Government accept that proposal. It was not part of our original suggestion, but we think it not unfair and not unreasonable, and I understand that the Members of another place have it in mind to make a regulation. I think we can leave it to them to make a regulation limiting this facility to those who are reasonably regular attendants, and if any debatable matter should arise at any time, it could be raised in this House when the money is voted for the general expenses of another place.
This completes the Motion. Now we must also have a Bill in order to implement the recommendations of the Committee in certain respects, because the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937 prohibits a Member of the House of Commons from receiving payment, when he is a Minister, in respect of membership of the House of Commons. This must be removed by an amendment of the law, and this we propose to do to enable us legally to give effect to the provision in the Motion which I have already explained, whereby Ministers with less than £5,000 a year shall receive an addi-

tional £500. To pass the Motion is not enough to give effect to that in the case of junior Ministers. The Motion is enough to give effect to the provisions about Private Members' salaries, but the proposal with respect to Junior Ministers can only be put into effect if we amend that Act, as this Bill does. The only other matters dealt with in the Bill are certain proposed changes in one or two ministerial salaries lying between the £5,000 level and £1,500 level—I will enumerate them in a moment—and the raising of two junior ministerial salaries from the £1,200 to the £1,500 level. It is set out with complete clarity in the Bill.
I see that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has just come in, and I would like to say how very grateful we are to the Select Committee, of which he was a Member, for the work they have done and we are very glad that their Report was unanimous. We are very grateful. It is a very good piece of work, and of great assistance. The Select Committee recommended that we should look into questions relating to some of what I might call intermediate salaries. The Government have done so, and propose certain changes. We propose in the case of the Postmaster-General, who has a very important Department, and a very heavy burden of work and responsibility, that his salary should be raised from £ 3,000 to £5,000 a year, and in the case of the Minister of Pensions, that the salary should be raised to £3,000 a year. We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who now receives £ 1,200 a year—

Earl Winterton: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I am sure he will not mind me interrupting. He is quite correct in his statement of what the Select Committee suggested should be looked into, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall have certain points to make on the Bill when we come to it.

Mr. Dalton: I was endeavouring to explain that in making these recommendations, the. Select Committee are not committed to the details of the change and that in carrying out the inquiry, we were doing what the Select Committee wished, namely, inquiring into these salaries and making recommendations. Of course, the recommendations may not necessarily be those which any member


of the Select Committee may himself have thought correct.
We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General should have £ 1,500, instead of £ 1,200, which brings him to the general level paid to the great majority of junior Ministers. We propose that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall, likewise, receive a payment of £ 3,000 and that the increment should be taken, not from the Duchy funds, but from voted money of Parliament. I do not know whether the House would wish me to go into detail on the various recommendations, or think it better that we should wait until we get to the Bill. I think that that might save the time of the House, but I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to other particular detailed proposals in the Bill, including one which I think has some importance. We do not now have any intermediate salary scale between the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who is the Chief Whip, and the general body of Whips. It seems that there is a case for having a Deputy Chief Whip with a salary slightly higher than is generally paid, who could act in the absence of the Patronage Secretary. We propose that there should be power to designate at any time one of the Whips other than the Chief Whip, and allot to him £ 1,200 a year, and he will be known as the Deputy Chief Whip.
I do not wish to prolong my initial statement, but I hope the House will think that the Government in making these proposals have not only kept close to the recommendations of the Select Committee, but have also made proposals which are in themselves reasonable. This is a matter affecting us, a matter of some potential delicacy, and I think I have presented it in such a way as not to offend any susceptibilities. I merely present what we think at this stage is a reasonable body of proposals and for which we are much indebted to their originators.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has taken, with your assent, Mr. Speaker, the course which is unusual in this House of moving a Motion and the Second Reading of a Bill in the same speech.

Mr. Dalton: I have not technically moved the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has made the speech he would have made when he comes to move the Second Reading of the Ministerial Salaries Bill. That course is not wholly convenient to hon. Members, for this reason. It is true that the House agreed on 15th November, without a Division, to appoint a Select Committee to consider the expenses, remuneration and conditions of work of Members of Parliament, including junior Ministers. On that occasion I expressed some views on the general question which, although I was speaking only for myself, were, I think, acceptable to a considerable number of my hon. Friends on these benches. In particular, I asked for an assurance that when proposals came to be formulated, they should be left, in this matter of Members' salaries, to a free vote of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman gave me some hope at that time that that course would be taken. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, no pressure, no appeal to party loyalties, will be made. I want to make it quite clear that I speak this evening entirely for myself. I hope that on the Motion relating to Members' salaries and expenses hon. Members on the Government side of the House will be similarly free to vote in accordance with their feelings.

Mr. Dalton: I said so.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman said so. I am very much obliged to him for that reassurance, but it is obvious in regard to the Ministerial Salaries Bill that hon. Members opposite cannot accept the same freedom. It is a Government Measure, and it would surprise me very much if the right hon. Gentleman. were prepared to divest himself of the assistance which the Whips give him when, and if, the matter comes to a Division. For that reason, I say it is a little inconvenient to be taking a general discussion on one matter where the Whips will be off, in conjunction with another matter on which, I take it, the Whips will be on. For that reason, I hope we shall be permitted at any rate a short discussion when we come to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He was not here when I made a statement and said that I thought it would be more convenient to have a general discussion now and a discussion on the Bill would naturally come


subsequently. I did not suggest that in order to prevent, discussion on the Bill but in the hope that it might help and shorten debate on it.

Mr. Peake: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling. To turn to the substance of the matter, I think one must first express the sense of indebtedness we all feel to the ron. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the other Members of the Select Committee for the careful and thorough investigation which they made into this matter. With one exception, which the Chancellor mentioned, I am in agreement with their recommendations. I am particularly glad that in accordance with the views expressed on 15th November they have not recommended any extension of the system of payments in kind. Payments in kind, as I then said, are liable to abuse, unless hedged around with safeguards of a type which are very vexatious to hon. Members. In the second place, they are open to the charge, or at any rate the suspicion, that we are receiving substantial emoluments in a concealed form. It is, of course, very much easier to defend a reasonable salary payment if there are real liabilities arising from our Parliamentary duties to be set against the Parliamentary salary. I differed from the recommendation of the Select Committee as also has the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the question of the amount of the tax free payments for expenses. I found that very abhorrent to my constituents. They took the view, and I think they were right, that it would be all wrong for hon. Members to come under what in practice would be a different Income Tax law from the ordinary citizen. I am, therefore, very pleased that the Government have taken the view that the salary should be a clear, fixed sum, and that-the recipient of it should be in the same position, as regards claiming expenses, as any other professional man or citizen who earns a salary.
Before dealing with the question of the amount of the salary, which is a little controversial, I should like to ask one or two questions about the details of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there would have to be a Supplementary Estimate covering all the heads of expenditure in the Motion.

Mr. Dalton: Mr. Dalton indicated assent.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to

ask why this Motion is retrospective. Why are the increased salaries to be made payable from 1st April last? That is surely an unusual course to take. I should have thought that 1st April was a particularly unfortunate day to choose —[Laughter]— not only for the reason which, obviously, is in the minds of hon. Members, but also from the point of view of the Income Tax law For Income Tax purposes the year ends at midnight. 5th April, and by making this salary payable as from 1st April last, 640 Income Tax expenses claims, which have already been settled, will obviously have to be reopened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the question of the date from which the increase is to commence.
I should like to express a view on the question of why junior Ministers receiving less than £ 5,000 a year, and officers of the House, that is, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, are not to be given the full benefit of the Parliamentary salary. It is really quite illogical to give these people one half of a Member's salary. They are full Members of Parliament. On the face of it, therefore, it really seems a little absurd to give them only half of a Member of Parliament's salary. I suppose that the explanation is that Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year are to receive no Parliamentary salary, and that it is thought convenient to place these junior Ministers, Whips and officers of the House in a kind of halfway house, and to say that, as the £ 5,000 a year Ministers are to receive nothing, and as the ordinary Back Bench Member is to receive the salary in full, these people in an intermediate position shall receive half the Parliamentary salary.
I am not quite satisfied with that. I have great sympathy with Whips and junior Ministers. They have been hardly treated hitherto. They give up the best years of their life, from the point of view of a private or professional career, and I have never been satisfied that they were sufficiently well remunerated. I served as Under-Secretary under a number of Ministers, and with one solitary exception — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir T Anderson)— I always felt that I was worth at least half the salary my chief was getting.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the exception?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was worth the salary of at least two Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year. The job of an Under-Secretary is no longer, as it used to be a generation ago, a sinecure, and hon. Members who take on the junior Ministerial jobs very often do so at heavy personal sacrifice. For my part, I should have liked to see them being given the full Parliamentary salary as Members of Parliament.
I turn for a moment to the question of the amount of remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman, following the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, proposes £ 1,000 a year. This goes rather beyond what I had in mind when I spoke on 15th November last. I thought, at that time, that an addition of £ 200, or something of that order, would have increased the Parliamentary salary in line with the increase with the cost of living. That would have been a modest and an easily defensible proposal. It would have represented an increase much smaller than increases which have taken place outside this House in many spheres of activities since before the war. But, on reconsideration, I am not disposed to quarrel with the conclusion that £ 1,000 a year should now be paid.
My reasons for coming to that conclusion are, first of all, as I have already mentioned, that this is the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee, which has gone very carefully into the matter. In the second place, £ 1,000 today is worth—it is a curious reflection—no more than the££400 which was originally granted as the Parliamentary salary in the year 1911. Thirdly— and to me this is the most cogent argument of all— fixing the salary rather higher than it was on a cost of living basis before the war, opens the doors of Parliament to a wider sphere of aspirants for Parliamentary office. It was said after the war of 1918, I forget whether it was by Lord Baldwin or Lord Keynes, that Parliament was made. up of hard-faced men who looked as though they had done well out of the war. What the verdict of history will be upon the first postwar Parliament after the 1939–45 war, I should hesitate to guess. At any rate, I think we all recognise the importance of

opening the doors of Parliament to aspirants of every class and walk of life. For that reason, I have become convinced that £ 1,000 is a reasonable salary. We must not forget that we are engaged in a precarious occupation, an occupation liable to prolonged and unpredictable periods of interruption of employment. Therefore, it is reasonable to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will attract people who are prepared, in mid-career, either to be translated upwards, translated downwards, or moved horizontally into another place. In passing, I may say that it is very necessary to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will not leave hon. Members open to the temptation of supplementing their incomes in an undesirable fashion.
There are two Amendments on the Order Paper to the Motion regarding Members' salaries. One suggests that the increase should be granted only in those cases where an hon. Member can satisfy a specially appointed Committee of Members, in confidential session, that such increase is essential to enable him to carry out his Parliamentary duties satisfactorily— [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a means test."] I do not intend to waste very much time upon that Amendment. I do not believe any body of hon. Members could be found who would be prepared to form a committee to discharge such a distasteful task.

Mr. Gallacher: Why was it imposed on the old folk?

Mr. Peake: It would involve an examination not only of hon. Members' sources of income but also of their budgets of expenditure. I am quite sure that the Amendment is impracticable for the simple reason that we should never find hon. Members to discharge such a task.

Mr. Gallacher: It would be an indignity.

Mr. Peake: The other Amendment is one with which one can have some little sympathy. It is in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member to- St. Maryle-bone (Sir W. Wakefield), who proposes that the increases in the various sections of the Resolution should apply not from 1st April last, but from the first sitting day of the next Parliament'. That is to say that he thinks that the increases are good and satisfactory but that they


should come into operation after a certain unpredictable lapse of time. I could understand opposition to the increase in salaries. I could understand any body voting against the Motion. I could also understand an Amendment in favour of a smaller increase than that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it does seem very odd to say, "I think the increases are all right but they should not be taken at the present time." Any hon. Member who holds that view has got a very simple way out of his difficulties. He is under no obligation to accept an increase in his salary. That was a course taken by a number of Members of Parliament when the last increase was made in 1937. An hon. Gentleman says " Not very many."I dare say there were not very many. I myself—I take no credit at all for this —was one of them. Quite frankly, I was a little afraid of what some of my constituents might say, but on that occasion I voted for the increase, and that is the course which I suggest my hon. Friend sought to take if they feel a certain reasonable queamishness about an increase in salary at the present time. I suggest that they should support the increase but should themselves decline to take it—

Mr. Kirkwood: The right hon. Gentleman is making some of them look very serious.

Mr. Peake: It would be one way out of the difficulty in which they find themselves. I think they are taking a great deal upon themselves if they are prepared to say, " Not only am I prepared to forgo any increase at the present time but I am also prepared to try and enforce such a prohibition upon every other hon. Member of this House." For those reasons, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Braddock: As there is a free vote on this matter, I intend to vote for this increase in salaries. I also intend to take the salary, but that does not mean that I am altogether satisfied with the Report which has been brought forward. In my opinion, we shall find as the result of experience that this can be regarded only' as a temporary matter. The Committee was asked to consider remuneration and conditions of work. Broadly speaking, as far as I can see,

only the' question of remuneration has been dealt with. That is probably necessary and unavoidable. Those of us who are new Members of Parliament took on this job with no thought of the remuneration. I do not consider that the financial side of this matter is of any great importance. If the proposal was to double the salary to £ 2,000 a year or to wipe out the salary altogether, I do not think either condition would make very much difference to the membership of this House. 
Most hon. Members on this side of the House were sent here as a result of very great sacrifice on the part of many thousands of people. If it was necessary to find additional money to hold us here I am perfectly confident that those people would provide it. Present conditions of work do not enable ordinary Members of Parliament to carry out their duties in the most efficient way, no matter how much salary is paid. One cannot obtain the best service simply by paying out money. Attention must be given very soon to the conditions of work.
That will involve consideration of the use that is made of the Palace of West Minster and of the opportunities given for ordinary Members to carry out their duties. The simple action of increasing the salary to £1,000 year will not enable Members of Parliament to secure the necessary office accommodation or to use secretarial assistance properly and effectively. Therefore, I consider these proposals are a compromise and that the matter will have to be considered in the light of future circumstances. It will have to be considered as soon as the Government, or some authority, can get down to the job of replanning the Palace of Westminster so that proper use can he made of the accommodation. I do not refer simply to the rebuilding of the Chamber. I think it is very unfortunate that it is being rebuilt in the way that it is, but that is not the major problem. The major problem is to make the best possible use—

Earl Winterton: I was Chairman of the Select Committee which considered that matter. I think, in justice to the Select Committee, I should tell the hon. Member that their recommendations were accepted unanimously by the House.

Mr. Braddock: They were not accepted by the present House of Commons. If this matter could be brought up again


I suggest that the decision would be reversed. However, perhaps I ought no! to have mentioned that point. In discussing conditions of work, I am entitled to say something about the whole of the building. I am perfectly certain that this building could be altered and remodelled in order to provide the necessary accommodation and to enable every Member of Parliament to have good conditions of work.
I am very glad that the Government have rejected one of the proposals of the Committee. I refer to the proposal with regard to Income Tax. In view of the fact that they have done that, it puzzles me that payment of railway fares from the homes of hon. Members who live in London to the Palace of Westminster should be allowed. I take it that we did not accept the Report with regard to Income Tax because we did not want to differentiate between Members of Parliament and the public generally. The same reason should apply to railway fares between the House of Commons and the homes in which we live in and around London. If we are paying railway fares for Members of Parliament in these circumstances, we are treating them very differently from the ordinary members of the public, who cannot even get an allowance off their Income Tax for the money they spend on railway fares. The position of many people in London today under these conditions is very difficult. People have been bombed in London and have had to go out into the suburbs to live, and, in order to get to work, have to pay fairly heavy railway expenses. It does seem to me that the Government have made a mistake and that the House will make a mistake in accepting this position.
There is only one other matter on which I want to comment, and that is the proposal to pay railway fares of people in another place. This is a completely new idea. I can quite understand the argument, and it is a right and just one, that the democracy of this country, having, after deliberation, selected certain people to represent them in the House of Commons and engage in the work of Government, should make satisfactory financial arrangements, but the people of this country have never selected the people who sit in another place and have never invited them to legislate on their behalf. I think it is introducing a very dangerous

precedent to pay the railway fares of people sitting in another place, and, if an opportunity can be given, under the arrangements being conducted tonight, for me to vote against that proposal, I shall most certainly do so. Of course, if there is no opportunity, I shall have to let it go through, but I shall only do so under protest.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities): I find myself reluctantly compelled to oppose this Motion. Like those hon. Members who have already spoken, I should like to express at once the deep respect that I feel for the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith) and his colleagues on both sides of the House, and to say that I differ from the conclusions of their Report most reluctantly, because there is some part of their proposals, and part of this Motion, with which I am in agreement, though I cannot agree to the main proposition that we should increase our salaries to the sum of £ 1,000.
I will put my points very briefly. The first point is that no one has suggested, as far as I know, and the Select Committee certainly did not, that this increase in salary is really made necessary by anything that has happened between the General Election and the present time. Nobody asserts that. Nobody has been elected to this House with any grounds at all for believing that he was going to get more than £ 600 a year. That is the expectation with which every one of us has been elected. Indeed, had the matter been otherwise, and had there been a case at the time of the General Election for raising the salaries, there is no reason at all why that matter should not have been part of the programme and announced to the country in advance. I do not dwell on that point except to say that, quite clearly, there is no one who came to this House with any right to expect any increase of salary. That, I agree, does not take me far on the merits of the proposal, but it is important.
I come to what seems to me to be the very important point of substance. I regard it as improper that this particular House should vote itself an increase of salary. I believe there are few duties of a Government— there are some, but they are comparatively few—that come above the duty of trying to see that the value


of money does not rapidly change. The duties of defence and certain other things come above it, but there is a general duty on Parliament and on the Government to see that the value of money does not rapidly change. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of his speech, is aware that the avoidance of inflation is important. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman says so in answer to Questions almost daily. I should obviously be out of Order to go deeply into the matter, but, in my genuine belief, inflation is not only with us, but, by the cowardice and inaction of the Government, is tending greatly to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Order."I I know this is controversial, but I believe it to be true, and I say that, by the inaction and cowardice of the Government, it is tending to increase, and that the Government are enjoying the uncomplaining support of the majority of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: " Ridiculous."]
If that inflation proceeds, as I believe it will, and prices rise, every person in the community with a fixed income will suffer grievously. So far from thinking that hon. Members of this House should be immune from that suffering, which will come about largely by their own dereliction of duty, I believe that hon. Members of this House ought to be the first to suffer. Only today, at Question time, an increase in railway fares was announced. As a result of that, we, in this House are already better off than the rest of the community, for the simple reason that we get certain railway travel paid out of public funds. There will, similarly, be an increase of prices in many other things, and every one of our constituents with a fixed income is going to suffer. If I felt that this House was determined and was showing sufficient vigilance to compel the Government to take courageous and wise action to stop inflation, my attitude to this Motion might be different. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite think it is funny.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and learned Member cannot see himself as others see him.

Mr. Strauss: I do not believe that there is any ground whatever why, if inflation takes place, hon. Members of this House,

and they alone, should have protected themselves from the suffering caused by the inevitable rise in prices.
I have dealt with the first two reasons. Thirdly, there is this one. There is a general belief, I should have thought, in every quarter of the House, that the private Member should, as far as possible, show his independence, and not be, or be thought to be, subservient to the executive Government of the day. I know that that may be thought to be an argument in favour of an increase in salary of private Members on proper occasions. I agree it might, but I do not think it is so when we raise the salary to such a figure that there will be many hon. Members of this House who can earn that salary while they are Members, but who would have no reasonable prospect of earning it in occupations outside. That is an important consideration, and for the three reasons which I have given I find it impossible to support this Motion. If, as I hope, there is a Division, I shall record my vote against it. I would say at once to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peeke), with whom on many subjects I agree, that I am afraid he was quite illogical when he said we shall have the remedy in our own hands. That I believe to be a wholly fallacious argument. I shall not vote against this Motion on the ground that I think there is something peculiarly improper— if it is accepted and becomes the law—in my taking the salary increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] — Hon. Members opposite can make use of any point which they think is there. I say there is no point. [An HON. MEMBER: " Give it back to the Treasury."] I may, or may not, but it in no way affects the grounds on which I am opposing this Motion.
The reason which I am certain is of the greatest public importance is the reason of inflation. I think it was the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) who said that this would not be the last increase. If the cost of living is used as an argument, and if inflation proceeds as I fear it will, there will be a case for a similar increase at a later date.

Mr. Gallacher: Cheer up.

Mr. Strauss: Hon. Members opposite may think it very clever to say "Cheer up," but I would assure the House— and the Communist Party in particular—


that it will not be thought by the country to be particularly funny if a year hence prices have gone up in the same way as railway fares are going up according to this afternoon's announcement, and the only people whose salaries have been increased by 66⅔ per cent. are Members of the House of Commons who voted the increase themselves.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I must say that I do not altogether agree with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) to which we have just listened, and I would like to give the House my reasons for disagreeing with him. This is a delicate subject to discuss. We are discussing our own salaries and I, no less than other hon. Members, am financially interested in the result. But perhaps, in one way, I have a special qualification to speak. In the first place, long before I was a Member of this House, I made the subject a special study and endeavoured to put into a memorandum the views which I happened to hold about it and; in the second place, I am in a rather different position from most hon. Members inasmuch as my own political life is bound to be a short one. Owing to the constitution of the country I shall certainly, if I live my natural course, be spirited away from this House, whether or not I forfeit the confidence of my constituents. To that extent, at any rate, I can honestly say that perhaps it matters less to me what the result of today's Debate may be than it does to most hon. Members.
I will try to approach this matter from an impartial point of view and to tell the House the objects I have in mind. In the first place, this is not, in any sense, a party matter—it is a House of Commons matter. Nevertheless, I venture to say to my hon. Friends that if there are any Members of my own party who suppose that we shall not be the gainers from paying Members properly, that they are very much mistaken. There is no party in the country which stands to gain more from the proper remuneration of Members than the Conservative Party. The great criticism of our party has been that we have provided nothing for a person of humble origin and limited means to enable him to take a full part in public

life. We represent 9,000,000 voters, but we have not the great organisation which the party opposite have to make it possible for those 9,000,000 voters to be fully represented in this House, and for their point of view to be put forward. I hope that one of the things that will happen as the result of this Motion being carried will be that a sense of shame will be removed from my party on this matter. I am not frightened by the suggestion that it will not be the final figure, and I propose to say a word or two about that later.
The first question, therefore, we have to decide is not a party question; it is, How are we to get the best representation of the people in this House of Commons? I turn to the findings of a very careful research worker in this matter. It is a matter of discredit to our public institutions that, in order to become a Member of Parliament, a person has to belong to one of two or three favored professions. Every other person who was elected to Parliament in the years between the wars was either a member of my own profession, the law, a company director, or a trade union official. That means that practically the entire population of the country is economically prevented from membership of Parliament. That is not a matter which I can look upon with any sense of satisfaction especially as, if one took those of the half which remained, one would find that a great proportion of them were following one of two or three other favoured professions, like journalism, which it is possible to combine with the duties of a Member of Parliament, or that they had ample personal means of their own.
In point of fact, if we do not face this problem, far from dealing with this matter on proper public lines, we shall really be excluding the great bulk of the people from representation in this House in favour of a privileged minority, which exists in all parties, although the nature of the privilege differs from side to side.
The second motive which underlay the consideration of this subject was—I find it difficult to say this tactfully, but, none the less, it has to be said—that we in this country have a very broad tradition of honour in our public life. That is not confined to any class or any party. The standards of our public life are pure and we all desire that they should remain pure. They have become pure only in the last.150 years, at the very most.
We, as British people, are not immune from the ordinary temptations of human nature. What has made public life pure in this country is the insistence, on the one hand, of a very high standard of personal honour among those who take part in it, but, on the other, a state of law which makes it incumbent upon us and possible for us to observe those pure principles. I regard it as a matter of absolute certainty that if there ever comes a time when a great number of Members of this House are elected to it by their constituents and have not, in fact, the means to live in dignity, there will be those who will yield to temptation. I say that deliberately. I am certain that the way to keep public life pure in this country is to see that Members of Parliament are properly remunerated, and there is no other method. It is true that public services used to be given free for a number of centuries, but they were given free because they were performed by a class of person who had the means to perform those duties, and who performed those duties as a public service precisely because they enjoyed the privilege of wealth derived from the land.
Moreover, originally we used to pay Members of Parliament. That was the tradition from the time when Edward I instituted Parliament until late in the 17th century. I think the last Member of Parliament to be paid under the old regime was the poet Marvell, who represented King's Lynn about 1685. The practice of being paid fell into desuetude as a part of the general development of corruption in our public life, whereby seats in Parliament came to be bought, sold and paid for by those who had the means to do it. That is the historical fact. The next stage was for the Parliament of 1730 to insist upon the possession of £ 600 derived from land as the condition for any Member of Parliament holding his seat, which led to many disreputable evasions and which, none the less, remained a peculiar law of our country until 1858. That being the history of the matter, I feel convinced that we have been right to return to the remuneration of Members of Parliament in 1911, and I can only feel that the time has come to examine anew, in the light of the changed circumstances, whether the figure of remuneration is right or wrong.
I will say a word about that in a moment, but in the meantime let me

state the third of the great principles which I think we ought to apply in this Debate. Assume that it be true that we are not, by reason of economic circumstances, getting all the people in Parliament that we ought to get, and assume that we are running the risk of lowering our public standards by not remunerating Members of Parliament at the proper figure, surely it is the duty of every Member of this House to take the responsibility of saying so and of supporting this Motion, and in no circumstances whatever to seek to obtain political capital by exploiting what are, undoubtedly, the obvious, cheap, superficial but utterly misguided criticisms which are seen from time to time in the Press or reflected in the correspondence which we receive from various parts of the country. We must maintain the prestige of the House in this matter. We must make it clear that we are not doing this thing out of a desire for personal advantage, but that we are doing it from the very deepest sense of public duty. If that were not so, I would be the first to vote against this Motion. But the case for doing it is, to my mind, overwhelming.
I shall not go over again the vast bulk of evidence which was accumulated by the Committee, because I assume that even if the public have not read this Report Members of this House will have done so, but I only venture to reply in a word or so to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities. He seemed to suggest that should this Motion be passed, we would be the only persons whose salaries had been increased. But, of course, that is not so.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I said that if the Motion were passed I thought we would be the only people who would have increased our salaries to the extent of 66⅔ per cent., to meet the cost of living

Mr. Hogg: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend can have studied the evidence given before the Committee, because since I have been a Member of Parliament, which is only seven or eight years— nearer-eight than seven—the cost of any conscientious Member's work has increased by a very great deal more than 50 per cent. Take only the question of a secretary's salary. When I was first elected to Parliament—I say it with shame — eight years ago, it was possible to


engage a fairly good secretary for under £3 a week. We cannot get one for under five guineas now, and I do not think we should try. As a matter of fact, a great many secretaries now cost between £ 6 and £8 a week. That sort of thing coming out of a salary of £ 600 makes it absurd to suggest that a substantial increase is not urgently required, on the assumption that the great bulk of Members of Parliament today are men and women who not only have to pay for secretaries, but have to find some means of livelihood for themselves and their families, and have to incur many other expenses.
In addition to that, it is obviously true that even since I have been a Member, and abundantly more so since salaries were first introduced in 1911, the task of a Member of Parliament has been very much more exacting in point of time. It is possible to over-estimate the burden of constituency work. It is very much more important that we should not cause another war than that we should get our constituents the right amount of pensions, but, none the less, merely as a matter of time, the actual burden upon a Member of Parliament, who may be seeking other sources of income, undertaken by conscientiously attending to the 101 details of administration which his work involves, obviously disqualifies him far more than it ever did before from being able to earn his living in some other sphere.
I, therefore, say with confidence that the only right test to apply to this question of salaries is to pay such a figure as will enable a Member of Parliament at a sacrifice — and I emphasise the words " at a sacrifice "— to be able to do that, and nothing else. I myself do not subscribe to the view that Members of Parliament should be debarred from seeking other sources of emolument. On the contrary, I think the most valuable part of our public life has been the fact that this House of Commons has been able to command the services both of the whole-time politician like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood ford (Mr. Churchill), and of the part-timer who judges the merits and value of the policies which the whole-time leaders inevitably propose from superior experience and study. It would be a disaster to our country if we were all to become whole-time politicians. Nonetheless, I maintain

that the only test for a salary should be a figure which would enable a man at a sacrifice to give himself completely to the service of his country.
I have one word to add on the question of amount, and it is this. I am convinced that the figure of £ 1,000 is too small. I do not suggest that it should now be raised to a higher figure, but I am certain that in the course of years it will be increased and I think we should face that fact. I said so in my evidence and, therefore, I cannot be accused of inconsistency in this respect. It is not likely to be increased during my lifetime as a Member of this House, but the fact of the matter is this:
Even the figure of £ 1,000 is quite disproportionate to what other Legislatures, in other democratic countries, have found it necessary to pay their members in order to get the best service, and I am absolutely certain that the time will come when the remuneration here will increase also. After all, if it be true— as it certainly is in my case— that membership of this House of Commons involves a net outlay of £ 750, it is absurd to pretend that the great bulk of people who enter the service of this House will be able to raise a family, and to keep a wife, on what remains afterwards, after deduction of Income Tax. It simply is not so, and it is naive to pretend that it will be so for the very great majority. I think it is my duty to say so because really I do not care very much, from my own point of view, what happens to this Motion tonight.
There is one argument I should like to counter as regards the Amendment on the Paper. The obvious implication of the Amendment is that we ought not to proceed in this matter without some sort of new mandate from the people. It is said that we should not do it now, but should wait until the first day of the next Parliament. I am bound to say that I reject that argument. It seems to me that a great deal of nonsense is talked about mandates in modern politics. The real truth about the mandate is this: at a General Election a very large number of public issues are under discussion, and the electorate has to give an impressionist view as to which of two or three sets of men it wishes to preponderate in the House of Commons during the period of years which follows. To suggest that minute details of policy ought to be intro-


duced into an election programme is just as silly as the suggestion, which sometimes emanates from the benches opposite, that if they are introduced into the election programmes they ought to be passed through without discussion. The real truth of this matter is that the House of Commons must be the judge of departures in policy if the Government does not care to take the responsibility of announcing it itself. The time-honored constitutional procedure for this follows one of two methods. One is the Select Committee procedure, and the other is the Royal Commission procedure. Following precedents, we have taken the Select Committee procedure in this case. Evidence has been presented, the Select Committee has reported, we have considered the evidence and the Report, and I feel abundantly sure that we ought to proceed now to a decision, to do that which is right if we think it is right.
I will end with this observation. We are doing a difficult thing, but we do owe it to this House of Commons to make it plain to our constituents— from all parts of the House— why we are doing it. There is always a danger in democracy that the two parties abuse each other so much that the general public believes that which is evil which is spoken by both of them, and comes in the end to disregard and despise its democratic institutions. The service of this House of Commons is what matters most in this Debate today, and it is precisely for that reason that I have ventured to say what was in my mind as to why, whatever comes, I shall support this Motion tonight and shall oppose any Amendment which may be pressed— as I hope it will not be— to a Division.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Tom Smith: I am sure that Members of the Select Committee will agree with me when I say that we are extremely grateful for all the nice things that have been said about our work. Personally, to have been chairman of a Select Committee like this was a very happy experience. This Report represents a compromise. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) came before the Committee and put forward proposals similar to what he has just outlined. We had evidence from others who wanted less than £ 1,000, but the Report represents a unanimous decision and, on balance, we think that

£ 1,000 is a fair figure. I remember representations which were made in this House before the payment of Members was first introduced in 1911, and I also remember the £ 400, and the very precarious position in which many Members of this House, of all parties, who fell by the wayside in 1921, found themselves because they had not been able to save anything out of their Parliamentary salaries. I think that when the House appointed this Select Committee it knew that £ 600 a year was not sufficient for the work that a Member of Parliament has to do.
There is one thing which needs a little comment. The Committee came out with the suggestion that £ 500 of the £ 1,000 should be free of Income Tax. We discussed this for a very long time. We could have used different language in that Report which would have meant the same thing, but we decided to present the country with what we believed to be the right thing. Looking through the whole of the Press cuttings, from every daily newspaper in this country, with the exception of about two, the comments. have been extremely favourable and extremely gratifying to those who sat on the Committee. The argument that to make £ 500 of a Member's salary free of Income Tax is giving treatment different from that accorded to the ordinary business man is not true. The ordinary man receiving a salary does not pay his own typist, he does not pay his postal bill, he does not pay his hotel bills when he is away doing business for his firm out of his salary. All that is in addition to his salary. But take the position of a Member of Parliament on £ 600 a year. The postal bill alone of a new Member after the General Election was colossal. Living in London was dearer than some people imagined. When I first came to this House in 1922 we could get accommodation at a decent hotel at about half of what we have to pay today. Our expenses generally were far less than they are now. I say without the slightest hesitation that the Select Committee came to the view that £ 1,000 was the right thing. With regard to the Dominion Parliaments. we set out in the Report a summary of what exists in the different Dominion Parliaments. We do not set out what exists in foreign Parliaments, because we thought we would confine ourselves to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but we did take some evidence from those who


have had experience in Parliaments other than of the British Commonwealth, and it was on balance that we came to that figure, and I hope the House will accept it.. I think the Government have done exceptionally well in this Motion.
Some hon. Members who gave evidence and who sat on the Select Committee, in addition to being Members of Parliament, have been Parliamentary Secretaries. The Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary, the moment he accepts office, has to put off all outside earnings. He has not a penny piece allowed to him in any shape or form for expenses. There is no 12 months' carry-over of his Income Tax, it is taken off at the end of the month, and when one comes to reckon what is left he is not much better off than he was when he was an ordinary Member of Parliament. On balance we thought it was wise to say that the Parliamentary Secretaries should have something. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) spoke about giving Under - Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries half the Parliamentary salary, I am rather inclined to the view that there would have been some criticism if the Select Committee had suggested that they should have an increase of £ 1,000 instead of £ 500. On balance, we thought this would work out fairly. With regard to conditions of work, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend who sits beside me, we discussed, and took evidence upon, what could be grouped under the term " conditions of work." Suggestions were put forward to us for free postage, free typists, free Empire travel. We disagreed with them all, because we knew that in practice it would be open to abuse. The pooling of secretaries would not work out fairly; I believe that a secretary should be individual to the person for whom she works if it is desired to get the best work. I think that on balance we did the right thing in that regard.
With regard to another place, it is suggested in this Motion that the Noble Lords should be paid traveling expenses. The Select Committee had that matter brought to their attention, but were advised that it was outside their terms of reference; therefore, they could not touch it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said he would vote against that. I would point out that

in these modern times, with changes of Government, we have no right to expect Noble Lords, some of whom are not rich, to pay £8, £10 and £15 a week to come to London to do Government work. The Members of another place have been extremely modest in asking for only railway fares. Moreover, they have tried to limit the matter in such a way as to give the benefit only to those who attend to do the work. I think the Select Committee can leave it to the House to decide what they believe to be the best thing. We did not specify any figure in the recommendation that the Government should look into Ministerial salaries of under £ 5,000 a year. We thought it better to advise the Government to look into it. It has been brought forward in such a way as to remove anomalies in two cases. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and the Assistant Postmaster-General were each getting £ 1,200 a year as against the £ 1,500 a year of the other Parliamentary Secretaries. That anomaly has been removed, and we think rightly so. Other increases have been given, and I think the Select Committee can now leave it to the judgment of the House.

8.32 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: It is a very proper practice in this House to disclose an interest in any matter which is being debated. Clearly, all of us have an interest in this matter. While I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that we should approach this entirely objectively, quite obviously we have an interest. For my part, the interest is a small one, because Income Tax and Surtax make it so. While I do not urge this view upon anyone else, I cannot but express it myself as sincerely felt. That very fact makes me feel that I must vote for this figure of £ 1,000, because it means so much more to others, than it does to me. I should think it wrong not to have regard to the situation in which I am quite certain many hon. Members in this House find themselves. I can feel that with all the more sincerity, because when I entered this House over 20 years ago and had to try to maintain life in those days on £ 400 a year, I found it extraordinarily difficult. Entry to this House was almost barred to me, and to many scores of thousands who served, as I did, in the first of our world wars. One had to be either a wealthy


man who could secure nomination to a Conservative constituency, or else a trade union official who, in middle life, was given a reward for having done good work. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I do not think this is a matter for humour. I think it was the cause of a great deal of the bad work done by Parliaments between the wars.
I affirm that the best Parliamentarians are those who enter Parliament young. Hitherto we have been unable to get a real cross-section of our community entering Parliament at a young age; only a few have been able to enter, mainly on this side of the House. It has been mainly from this side of the House that the greatest contributions to our politics have been made. I affirm that this is true. This is no party point. It is a historical fact. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say it is not a party point. Because there has been privilege, because there- has been leisure, we have seen the great statesmen who, in the past 100 years, have brought us our freedom, entering this House and, at a young age, learning its work. It is of no use to this House to recruit the great bulk of its membership from successful businessmen in middle life or from successful trade unionists in middle life. If we want a good House of Commons, which does represent a cross-section of the will and thought of our people, we must make it possible for young men to come into this House.
Should the salary be that of a whole-time job? That is the question to which I now address myself. I think the salary should be such a salary as would enable a young man, who has not yet acquired great experience, to come into this House with the certainty that he can at any rate maintain himself for a time, and get on in the world. I should not like to see salaries so high that they would induce people to make Parliamentary life a whole-time job. My view is not that our constituents are not entitled to the very best we can give them; but because I think the best we can give them is a. wider experience than that of a civil servant I say that men should continue to act in the field of trade union activity, that men should continue in their professions, that men who have directorships, men who go into county council work, or farmers should continue their work. All these men can bring a rich variety of talent and

experience to this House. If this House ceased to be a cross-section of active people, and to have Members with roots in many and various aspects of our life, then we should lose much.
I agree profoundly with the hon. Member for Oxford that it is more important that we should be a cross section of the community, and that we should think wisely and sensibly about great issues, than that we should become a Civil Service machine serving the particular interests of every individual constituent who cares to write to us. Not that we must neglect our individual constituents. Part of our office is to represent the individual; but the most important aspect of our office is to represent the great streams of thought which we try to canalise and direct for the good of our country and of all the people in it.
An Amendment is on the Paper— I hope sincerely it will not be moved—in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). His argument, it seems to me, is one which is found in so many realms of our public and private affairs — that it is a good thing that there should be some check upon the fixing of salaries, that other people should fix our salaries rather than ourselves; and that, therefore, we ought not to fix these salaries for ourselves but should refer them to the people. I imagine that that is his argument. Well, it is not a practicable proposition. I would call to the minds of hon. Members of the House the many discussions some of us have had in our Smoke Room for the last 20 years and more, as' to what should be the Prime Minister's salary. Everybody knew that £ 5,000 a year was an inadequate salary for the Prime Minister. Everybody knew that some Prime Ministers found it very difficult to manage on that salary, and that it was an embarrassment to them. Every thoughtful person knew that the salary should be raised, but no Prime Minister dared raise his own salary. No Prime Minister dare ask his Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise his salary. Why? Because, human nature being as low as it is, it was morally certain that someone on the other side of the House would take advantage of him at the following Election. So, for many years, we went on knowing perfectly well that this great office of State was underpaid, but unwilling to do what was right in this House, until it So


happened that a particular Prime Minister took the responsibility of raising it because he was not going to enjoy it himself after the Election whatever happened. We had to wait for an accident like that before we got a change which could have been made years before and which was necessary for the well-being of the State.
It is exactly the same with Members' salaries. If you leave this until the next Election, who among us is going to be strong enough to put it in his Election address? It becomes an absurdity. And so we have to take responsibility to ourselves—not voting this to ourselves for ourselves, but voting it to ourselves and to whoever may follow us for the good of our country. I do not want to go over the arguments made so capably by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, although I affirm my agreement with a great many of them. I will comment however on one, the party argument, which was put by the hon. Member for Oxford. I am as convinced as he is that if there is any party advantage on this matter, which I doubt and which I would deplore—but if there is, it lies with the Conservative Party. They have suffered, they are suffering now, and they will suffer so long as they draw their Members of Parliament from a limited class in the community. Let them therefore take good cheer from the prospect rather than be fearful about it, for it will increase and multiply the prospects of a greater variety of new talent coming to strengthen them in the next Election. I have no other comment to make, except that I most earnestly hope, for the sake of the dignity of this House and the well-being of our Parliament, which I think is of fundamental importance to the happiness and welfare of our people, that my hon. Friends on any side of the House will not challenge this Motion, but, so far as is possible, will give it their unanimous support.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I think it is true to say that there is no substantial opposition anywhere in the House to the Bill designed to increase Ministerial salaries. Least of all would there be opposition from this Bench, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) has more than

once in the past drawn attention to the peculiarly unhappy position of junior Ministers.

Earl Winterton: I do not think that the hon. Member was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling. The hon. Member must not assume that the Debate on the Ministerial Salaries Bill is taking place now, because Mr. Speaker made it clear that it would take place at a later stage.

Mr. Stewart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter at some length in his speech, and I think I am entitled to make response in a few words. I was endeavouring to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich had more than once initiated Debates in this House drawing attention to the peculiar difficulties of junior Ministers, and we are very happy, therefore, that a change in the right direction should now be made.
As regards our own position as Members, this, as has been said, is a subject of considerable delicacy upon which each one of us must search his own conscience and make up his own mind. It ought not to be a party question, and if I judge the feeling of the House rightly, opinion on this matter varies within almost every group. Nor is that surprising, for we are concerned here not only with the impact of certain facts upon ourselves, but also with the impact of any decision we may take upon the conscience and the sense of fair play of the people. We are concerned with the reactions which our decision may have on the country. We are here not only as elected representatives of the people, but as trustees of the people, particularly as the trustees of the public purse; and, therefore, we are bound to consider whether our action is going to be regarded well by those for whom we act as trustees. The power that resides in this House to determine our own salaries, imposes upon us a responsibility, quite out of keeping with the actual sum of money involved It is a very heavy responsibility. At all costs— and I think that the whole House feels this— we must guard against any suggestion that Members of Parliament are taking advantage of their peculiarly privileged position to feather their own nests.
In reflecting upon the reactions of the public to what we do tonight, there are


one or two points which we have to consider. The first is that, in proposing this increase, we are not doing anything that was in the Election address of any party at the last General Election. No party, in any part of the House, had any mandate for this particular increase. It is not even in the little book which we have so often seen in the hands of hon. Members gesticulating on the other side. At the last Election every candidate who stood— and there were nearly 2,000— knew that the salary here was £ 600 a year, and he offered his services on those terms. That being so, I find it a little difficult to justify this sudden and very substantial proposed increase. I have found it difficult to satisfy public meetings that this increase is justified. We are concerned here, let it be noted, not with full-time salaries. I think that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was getting somewhere near to the suggestion that we should pay Members of Parliament such a salary as to make them very nearly self-supporting. That is not the issue tonight. We are concerned here with two things only: Meeting Members' expenses and providing for what the Committee call " maintenance."That is very different from trying to provide full-time salaries.
I think there is a case for some increase. The cost of living has risen since the £ 600 a year figure was first fixed. It has risen, indeed, since the time of the last Election. There is no doubt that since then—I speak from my own experience— there has been a very substantial increase in the cost of the various services which Members have to use— stamps, telegrams, telephones. All these things have added to our expenses very considerably since then. There has also been a considerable increase in Income Tax since the £ 600 a year figure was first introduced. But I confess that I see nothing in the Report here or in the evidence attached to the Report, and I have heard nothing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, to justify such a substantial increase as is now suggested. I do not know whether other hon. Members have found that evidence. Personally, I have not found it. Still less have I seen any evidence anywhere of justification for the Committee's proposal that £ 500 a year should be exempt from Income Tax. That was at all times an impossible proposal, which I should certainly have

opposed in the House, and I am glad to find that the Government did not persist in it. As I say, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for an increase of the size now proposed, bearing in mind the concessions which have recently been made. There is this season ticket with which I have been presented— no doubt other Members have received one too. It enables me to travel from my home to the House here every day, free of cost. That is a concession which is not allowed to any other class of worker.

Major Bruce: Did the hon. Member apply for this ticket, or was it given to him?

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to continue?

Major Bruce: Did he apply for it?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. and gallant Member is trying to make a stupid party point, if I may say so. I am trying to take an unprejudiced view of this matter. [Laughter.] It is all right for hon. Members opposite to laugh. If they think that this has no significance for the public outside, that is their business. I am concerned with what the public outside think about the matter, and I have to justify my action to the constituents whom I represent. Perhaps I am doing nothing more than thinking aloud, but I fancy that I am thinking in terms common to a great many hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am concerned to justify to myself, and to the public, what we are doing, and I say that the new concessions we have recently obtained, such as the new season tickets, which are offered to no other class of worker, makes it still harder for me to justify this increase of 66 per cent.

Mr. Paget: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that whether he accepts this increase or not is entirely optional?

Mr. Messer: He has accepted the season ticket.

Mr. Stewart: We are here considering a Government Motion. If we are to approach this problem with dignity we have to treat this as a matter of principle. What any individual Member does is a matter for him to decide. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is a much more wealthy man than I am,


and so does not need to accept his salary, that is his business. But it does not alter by one scrap the question we are now considering. What I say, bearing in mind the facts that I have just been mentioning, is that I would almost be persuaded to vote against this Motion, but for the feeling I have that there may be even today some— not, I think, many— hon. Members, colleagues of mine in this House, who, because of the present standard of £ 600 a year, are suffering serious hardship. If that is so, I am not prepared to oppose the Motion. I remember very well—I see the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the other side of the House and he, I am sure, remembers it, too— when Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, went into this matter about 1935. He told the House what he had done. He examined the budgets of certain hon. Members, and he satisfied himself on the evidence produced that there were hon. Members of this House who were simply not able to live decently on the salaries they were getting. For that reason he proposed an increase, and I supported him then.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member at one time speaks for the Motion and at another time is against it. Let him tell us, for goodness' sake, what he intends to do.

Mr. Stewart: I was hoping that the hon. Member was doing me the courtesy of following my argument.

Mr. Messer: Even he cannot perform miracles.

Mr. Stewart: I think every Member will agree that I have proceeded logically from one stage to another. Mr. Baldwin, as he was at that time, satisfied the House that an increase was desirable. The Select Committee say:
 Your Committee are in no doubt that the expenses incurred by Members in the course of their Parliamentary duties, both at Westminster and in their constituencies, are at present very high, and that in consequence many Members are finding themselves in a position in which they cannot perform their duties without financial anxiety.
If that is true, and the Government, after their own investigation, have come to the same conclusion, it is not for me, or any other Member, to stand in the way of hon. Members receiving the minimum facilities necessary for living, and doing

their job. For that reason, neither I, nor my hon. Friends, would wish to oppose this particular recommendation.
But I regret very much that opportunity has not been taken to go a good deal further than the Report recommends. If the Chancellor has a certain amount of money to give away, in order to improve our services here, I would have preferred that some part of the extra £ 400 should be used in a different way. For instance, could not Members of this House be provided with proper sleeping accommodation on nights when it is desirable? There were two or three late Sittings recently, when hon. Members were obliged, because they had nowhere else to go, to sleep in most miserable beds in Committee Rooms. That sort of thing is entirely beneath the dignity of this House. I think it is disgraceful that Members should be obliged to do that sort of thing. Reference is made in the Report to the herding of Members into something of the nature of a hostel. What an absurd suggestion. Nobody wants to do that, but I think it should be within the capacity of this House to have some sort of club, or rooms, or Institution— [Laughter.]— I do not know why Members should laugh—to which Members could go after late Sittings. My last train is 10.30 p.m. If I miss that I have nowhere to go unless to an hotel, and I suppose every hotel is probably closed at midnight.
Again, if we are to do our job properly there is no question whatever that we ought to have the facility, like legislators in other lands, of free travel throughout the length and breadth of this country. There is no doubt that we would benefit ourselves and this House by seeing things that many are at present unable to afford to go to see. In saying that I do not exclude Members' visits to the Dominions. These are the kind of extensions I would prefer to this unjustified, wrong and substantial increase about which we had no previous knowledge. The Government, however, have made this proposal on the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I find myself unable to oppose it.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: As a Member of the Select Committee, I was pleased to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and I hope that hon. Members sitting behind him will take his advice. Those who are opposed


to any increase need not take it, but they ought not to prevent those who really need an increase from having it. The hon, and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was a veritable Jeremiah. He was moaning all the time. He seemed to think that no increase should be given unless it was brought before the country at a General Election, but apparently he was unaware of the fact that when the £ 400 was originally given, and when subsequently the £ 600 was given, neither of those increases came before the electorate. They were given by a simple Resolution of the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was a pleasing contrast. The Select Committee certainly received from the hon. Member evidence that was exceedingly valuable, and showed that he had given much thought to the whole subject.
It has to be borne in mind that the Select Committee was representative of all parties in the House, and gave long and careful consideration to the evidence that was submitted. The Report was unanimous. To obtain unanimity in any Committee composed of representatives of different parties calls for compromise. The evidence showed that some witnesses wanted to give much more than the Select Committee finally decided to recommend. Let us take, for instance, one case. One individual, whose name appears at the head of one of the Amendments on the Order Paper, in giving his evidence, declared that a Member of Parliament ought not to be paid less than a town clerk, and he reckoned that the average salary of a town clerk was £ 1,500. He stated also that a town clerk had a car provided by the council. It is strange that the hon. Member's name appears at the head of one of the Amendments. It was suggested by others that £ 500 or £ 600 should be regarded as an expense allowance, to cover postage, and so forth. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, that suggestion was based upon what is common practice with commercial firms. In view of all the objections that have been made, I think it is perhaps as well that that idea should have been dropped. There was only one witness who considered that the present salary was enough, but he wanted Members of Parliament to take jobs outside. When it was suggested that a miner who was a Member of Parliament could hardly be

expected, after doing five days here, to go down the pit at the weekend, the witness agreed that that was true, but that others ought to take jobs outside. I feel that if a Member takes his work seriously, takes his fair share of Committee work, and attends regularly all the Sittings, he has no time left for outside work. A director of a company may be fortunate enough to receive a salary, but how many directors have we in this House who are in that happy position?
The only other hostile witness was frank enough to say— and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the English Universities also said the same— that every hon. Member should have known what he was coming to. That may have been perfectly true, but his attitude apparently was that if the Member came to this House and found he could not make ends meet he ought to resign. We think otherwise; we think that, if an hon. Member comes to this House and finds it is difficult to make ends meet, it is up to us to find a way to help him out of his difficulty. One thing that impressed me was the position of hon. Members on both sides who represent county constituencies. I think they will bear me out when I say that it is. impossible to do justice to such constituencies on the present salary. Transport facilities are difficult in many counties, and when a constituency embraces a number of villages this means car hire in order to visit those villages, which are very often most insistent that a Member should visit them.
The suggestion that a Member should I submit him self to an inquisition, as is proposed in the Amendment, and should humble himself to submit every detail of his expenses to a special tribunal, certainly savours of the worst form of means test.

Mr. E. P. Smith: There is absolutely no suggestion of that in the Amendment to which I have attached my name.

Hon. Members: There is.

Mr. Leslie: If a Member has to appear before a committee representing hon. Members of this House and, as it says here, " shall satisfy "Them, how can he satisfy that specially appointed committee if he does not divulge every item of his income? Is the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to be considered of


no value? Surely, we had plenty of evidence to show that there was need for an increase in salary. Is it honestly believed that hon. Members of this House are guilty of faking the returns they send to the Income Tax people? It seems that there must be an implication of something like that or they would not be asked to appear before a committee. I hope that those who have put down the Amendment will think it wise to withdraw it, and that the House will unanimously pass the Motion and agree to the subsequent Measure.

9.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): As a Member of the Select Committee I should like to say that I am in full accord with the Motion before us this evening. I was rather amazed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) — who I notice has gone away— that it would be better to provide him with improved sleeping accommodation than to provide hon. Members with a sufficient amount of money to make it possible for them to remain Members of this House. We also had to turn" down another suggestion which he mentioned that we should provide money at public expense to enable hon. Members to travel all over England. I am certain that we in the Committee were right in putting down any idea of perquisites. It is far better to be perfectly straight and honest and to say that we do not think the salary which Members of Parliament receive at the present time is sufficient for a great number of them to maintain a proper and decent living so long as they are Members of this House.
No one who listened to the evidence could possibly have come to any other conclusion than we did. I know that I could never have come into this House if there had not been a salary attached to the position. It was not a very large one in those days but it just made the difference. Now, it is apparently the opinion of the public at large that anyone can become a Member of this House as soon as he reaches the age of 21, presuming that he is of sound mind, is not a bankrupt and is not a Peer of the Realm. Many people think it is a very good idea. It is clear that a good many of such people could not possibly be in

a position to support themselves, and their families, if they had them, without having a salary of some kind.
The hon. Member for East Fife suggested that the proposal was far too large an addition. Really, is it? When we take Income Tax off, over and above the expenses, the actual addition to the salary will be very moderate. I rather share. the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that sooner or later it will probably be necessary still further to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, if Members are to give as much time to their labours in this House as they do at present. The addition which the Government are now proposing to the salaries is not large, but it will just make the difference between Members being able to do the work and not being able to do it, as is often the case now.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their Amendment. I quite appreciate the motive which has led them to suggest that the addition to the salary should be left to the next Parliament. They say that it is not for us to increase our own salaries; who else is to increase them if we do not? That is the only possible means of increasing them. The necessity for the increase has been established by the Report of the evidence that was laid before the Select Committee. I do not see that that is any serious reason why we should postpone this increase until the next Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said that we could not very well put it into our election addresses that one of our main planks was that we would increase our own salaries.

Sir Stanley Reed: Why not?

Sir C. Headlam: When the salary was first given to Members of Parliament, it was given by the Parliament which was then sitting. When the increase was given, the same thing happened. Therefore, we arc not acting otherwise than by precedent and I see no reason whatsoever why that Amendment should be put before the House. As for the other Amendment in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I have nothing to say about it except that it is a most intolerable suggestion and one which I hope no one will be willing to accept. We should be


well advised to accept the Government's proposals and to have done with this matter, for the time being, at any rate. There will be criticism— there always is on anything of this kind— but I would be prepared to stand on any platform in the country in support of this Motion.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities): I always hesitate to address the House when I am in complete agreement with almost every previous speaker because it is a complete waste of time, but the speech from the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has provoked me to say these words. I should hate to think that the only speech coming from a Member of one of the privileged University seats was a speech which expressed the views which have passed from his lips this afternoon. I represent, as does he, 40,000 graduates, 75 per cent. of whom have come from primary schools and poor homes. It has been, to my mind, ever since I have been in this House, a matter of some concern that the origins of Members of Parliament have been so obviously unequal as between the two sides. In fact, I have thought more and more that it was a sad day that the book written by Mr. Ross could ever have been written. It describes pretty faithfully how the great majority of Conservative Members come from a very small group of schools; how the very great majority of Liberal Members come from another class of school; and how the overwhelming majority in the last Parliament on the other side had come from a completely different origin, so far as education is concerned. [Interruption.] I know it is very easy to make a few points about some Members of the present Government but the broad fact remains completely true whatever my hon. Friends may say.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Mr. Lindsay: It is not what the Noble Lord says but the constant titter from this corner of the House. Another reason that tempts me to say a few words is that, for my sins, I have stood for one or two different constituencies in my time — three of the most hopeless seats for the Labour Party— and on each occasion was defeated by a large and enthusiastic majority. Since then I have been in a previous Government of a combination

of parties. I am perfectly certain from private information that there are many hon. Members— a previous Prime Minister, Earl Baldwin, knew that perfectly well and many a time said so, especially when he was responsible for getting a pension system introduced in the House — living with very great difficulty. All these points have been made so conclusively that there is no point in adding anything further, but I should not like it to be thought that the only voice speaking for the Combined English Universities spoke against this Motion.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Like the Senior Member for the English Universities (Mr. Lindsay), I am impelled to intervene briefly in this Debate by the speech of the Junior Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but before I come to that, may I. express my wholehearted agreement with the last words in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) when he dwelt on the utter inappropriateness and undesirability of submitting a matter of this kind to the test of a General Election? It is easy to marshal plausible arguments based on alleged democratic principles for such a course, but if there is any issue which ought not to be submitted to a General Election, it is an issue like this. There are three reasons for that. One was given by the hon. Member for Oxford, that the business of the electors at a General Election is to pronounce on broad principles and not to concern themselves with minor details. The second reason is that no average constituent is in a position, or could be in a position, to judge what is a right salary for a Member of Parliament, because he could not know the circumstances with which a Member of Parliament has to cope. The third, and perhaps most cogent reason, is the obvious difficulties which such a course would create. Imagine a well to do Member standing against a comparatively indigent Member, as frequently happens. How easy it would be for one to make capital by opposing any idea of an increase in Members' salaries and attempt to gain votes by that unworthy method.
I desire now to say a few words about the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities who, I am glad to see, has returned to


this House. I thought he was making pretty heavy weather over what is essentially a very simple matter, and his speech, if I may venture to say so, was none the better for starting from a premise that is completely false. The hon. and learned Member, if I remember aright, said that candidates submitted themselves at the General Election knowing that the salary was £ 600 and that nothing had happened since the General Election to change the general outlook. My hon. and learned Friend, through circumstances over which he had no complete control, was detained from the service of this House for the first few months of this Session, and therefore, perhaps, did not completely appreciate the situation which existed. The situation was this: that a great many Members on both sides of the House, though possibly more on one side of the House than the other, who had thrown themselves with some impetuousity into the electoral contest, had in many cases found themselves, to their great astonishment, Members of Parliament, had arrived at Westminster without having fully counted the cost, and had found the cost when they got here something which they could not meet. There is no discredit to anyone for that. It may have been said that they ought to have discovered beforehand what the cost would be. I venture to suggest that that would have been very difficult, if not impossible. It may be said that they could have consulted, as I tried to consult, some Member of a previous Parliament but, in fact circumstances in previous Parliaments— as I understand it, not having been a Member of one— were completely different in many respects from the circumstances that prevail today. [An HON. MEMBER: " Absolutely."] What previous Parliament had to cope with a flood of letters from constituents about demobilisation,' about Class B releases, about Essential Works Orders, about conscientious objectors, which throw on the average Member today a mass of work which I do not believe the ordinary Member of any previous Parliament had to face?
In face of that situation, what course was taken? A Select Committee was appointed, a Committee representative of all parties in this House; a Committee, if I may say so without any disrespect to them— and I am sure the Noble Lord will

not feel I am guilty of any disrespect to him—of very ordinary Members typical of the general run of Members of this House—

Earl Winterton: I would only observe that as the Committee, in the hon. Gentleman's patronising terms, was composed of very ordinary Members, it is a pity that he was not a Member of it.

Mr. Harris: I have no desire to dissent from that proposition, and if the Noble Lord desires it, I will amend my description and say that it consisted of nine ordinary Members and of one extraordinary Member. The Committee produced an admirable Report, a unanimous Report, and nothing struck me more forcibly than a point which has been made already by the hon. Member for Nor-manton (Mr. Smith), and that was the surprisingly favorable reception which this Report met with in the country. It is my business to read more daily papers I suppose, than most hon. Members, and I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Normanton when he said that with very few exceptions the Press of the country— representing, I imagine, our constituents very largely— was in full accord with the proposals of this Committee. In accordance with those of the Committee, the Government have brought in this Motion, and, although I should be the last to suggest any curtailment of the Debate, it seems to me that we have come to a point where everything has been said that could with advantage be said on this subject, and the best thing would be to get the Motion disposed of and pass on to the next Business.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Prescott: I do not propose to detain the House long, but it is a little unfortunate for the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), after he has made his observations, to say that all has been said that can be said, and that we should pass on to other Business, for there are several hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish to exercise their rights.
I am very glad that this Debate has not been approached in any part of the House in a party atmosphere. I feel very deeply that this matter we are discussing is a House of Commons matter which concerns hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Having said that, I hope that hon. Mem-


bers opposite will not think I am introducing a party political atmosphere if I say that when the Government made their announcement to set up this Select Committee to consider the remuneration of hon. Members, I felt some bitterness. I would like to tell the House why. I was a Member of the last Parliament, and just before the Election a pamphlet was produced which had a wide circulation in Lancashire in my constituency, and in adjacent constituencies. That pamphlet was not an official publication of the Labour Party, but it had a strong bias, to say the least, in favour of the policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not long before the General Election, there appeared in it a paragraph, or article— call it what you will— the effect and purport. of which, quite shortly, was as follows: "Your Tory M.P. has been getting £12 a week, old age pensioners get ten bob. Vote Labour."

Mr. Nally: rose—

Mr. Prescott: May I just finish this part of my speech and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes?

Mr. Nally: We must have the name at the pamphlet.

Mr. Prescott: I have already stated that it was not a publication of the Labor Party. I equally add that my opponent in. the Election made no reference of that kind. Nevertheless, that pamphlet did follow the policy of hon. Members opposite and it was extremely unfortunate and unnecessary and. its views were quoted quite widely. In the previous Election I got in with a majority of 70, and had not much to play with. We did a lot better this time, and had a majority of nearly 3,000. But it was a very unfortunate observation, and it was repeated quite often in and around Lancashire. Therefore, I think the House will understand why I say tonight that I felt some bitterness that this Select Committee was set up to increase the salaries of hon. Members. That bitterness, which has almost entirely evaporated now, does not detract from the fact that tonight we have to decide what is the right and proper thing to do and that is the real issue before us.
I should say there are two questions for consideration. I do not think anyone would deny in the first place that hon.

Members should be repaid the expenses, the reasonable expenses, which they incur as a result of carrying out their duties here. Indeed, the £ 400 a year was originally introduced to cover expenses, and not by way of salary. If it be accepted that hon. Members of this House should be reimbursed their expenses, the second question arises whether they should be paid a salary, a living wage, on which they can live if they have no outside means. In answer to that second question, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg).
If one is to call this country a democracy, as it is, and if it is to be an effective democracy, not only must any man be enabled to come to the House of Commons, but if he gets here, and if he has no others means, he must be provided with something on which to live. I take that view definitely and sincerely. I do not think Members should be provided with a high standard of living, but that they should be given a reasonable standard— [Interruption.] I am trying to make a non-party speech and to deal with the matter objectively If hon. Members wish to make unfriendly interventions I can quite quickly and quite spontaneously make a quite different kind of speech. [An HON. MEMBER: " Make it."] The hon. Member says " Make it. ' I prefer not to do so, but I will make one observation which I think I am entitled to make. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—I do not agree with it— which suggests that any Member who cannot manage on the present salary shall be entitled to go before a committee, and if he has not sufficient money oil which to live, upon inquiry he can get a further grant of money. [HON. MEMBERS: " Means test."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when that was mentioned, shouted " Means test."I quite agree that it is a means test, and I have always inveighed in and out of this House against a means test. But when hon. Gentlemen so glibly say " means test " and " shame," let them realise that old age pensioners still undergo a means test, and will do so under the Bill we have been considering today. Let us also realise that parents whose sons were killed in the war and who want a pension also have— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting too far from the Motion.

Mr. Prescott: I do not want to trespass on your good will, Mr. Speaker, or on the kindness of the House. I was drawn into that observation by interventions from the opposite benches.
In my submission to the House, we have now arrived at a point when we are agreed that there must be paid to hon. Members remuneration such as to enable them to have a reasonable standard of life. The question, therefore, arises, and it seems that it is the only question at issue tonight, whether the £ 600 we now receive is adequate under the present circumstances. Personally, I do not think it is adequate if a Member has no other means. I know that I spend practically the whole, sometimes more— it varies— of my Parliamentary salary on secretarial and postal facilities, telegrams and other matters of that kind. Therefore, if an hon. Member is to carry out his duties effectively, that £ 600 should be increased, in order to provide the wherewithal on which he may live. I do not know, and I do not think any hon. Member knows, how many have no other means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. I am not introducing any party point, I have no wish to be difficult, but if is a fact that wealth is not confined to this side of the House. There are hon. Members opposite who have ample means. Company directors have been mentioned. There are many company directors who sit on the opposite benches. There are many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite who are enabled to make quite a nice livelihood by the legitimate duties they perform outside this House— all honour to them. I do not know what is the number of hon. Members who have no means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. One of the things which is not disclosed in the Report we are considering is that vital fact.
I am prepared to accept it as a fact that there are a number, perhaps a substantial number, of hon. Members who cannot exist on their Parliamentary salary, which is all they have available to them. That being so, we must obviously make better and further provision for them. It would be invidious if one salary was paid to one section of hon. Members and another salary to another. There must be a lump sum for us all. I say quite frankly that I think that the recommendations of this Report are right, and I shall go into the Lobby, if there be a Division, in support of them. An hon.

Member referred to the question of inflation. What troubles me is that, apart from inflation, I think the country is going to be faced in the fairly near future with considerable demands for increases in wages. Many of those demands will have to be resisted. It is going to be slightly difficult for this House of Commons to resist some of them when we have very substantially increased our own salaries. That is one criticism I would make about this Motion being introduced now.
There is another criticism which I would make. I hope I shall not be out of Order in mentioning this. It is within the recollection of hon. Members—I am not patting myself on the back— that like many other hon. Members in this House, notably those on the opposite benches, I have always championed the cause of old age pensioners. I find it rather difficult, in present circumstances, to increase my own salary when there are certain sections of the community to whom I have made undertakings and to whom hon. Gentle men opposite—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should not go into details about everybody who might otherwise get increases of salary. There must be a limitation.

Mr. Prescott: I do not wish to trespass upon your kindness, Sir, or upon that of the House. I hope I have treated this matter quite fairly. I think I am entitled to say that if the position had been reversed at the last Election and we had been in the great majority and had then made these proposals, I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been quite so kind to us in the Debate as we have been tonight. I conclude, therefore, by saying that I myself agree that the present salary must be increased. I think it right and I shall vote for it if this matter goes to a division. I regret that it should have been thought necessary to introduce this Resolution as this time. There is one point on which I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Oxford City, and that is that I hope by and large hon. Members of this House will not become purely and solely professional politicians.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Nally: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) who, with great dialectical skill, kept himself as reason-


ably in touch as he could with the general trend of thought in the House but at the same time has given himself a magnificent alibi in order to speak to the electors of Darwen on this question. It was a completely non-party speech of the curious kind that the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make. We can rely upon him to use it with his usual skill to the best advantage in his division. We may anticipate that he will do that and just how he will do it. I want to say one or two words about the real meaning of what we are discussing. We are agreed on all sides that this is a new Parliament, consisting of a new kind of people. That refers not only to this side of the House. The change is coming on the opposite side as well. I have some knowledge of what the Conservative divisional associations are doing. One has contacts as a journalist with what is happening. It is quite clear that the Conservative Party have learned a lesson from the events of the last General Election. One of the lessons which they have learned is that younger able candidates, very often without much money, are essential for the salvation of their party— if there is to be any salvation for it— which I very much doubt.
It is true that the tendency of all parties is towards younger candidates, tested by the divisional associations on grounds of ability and irrespective of whether they have any cash behind them or not. The real problem is that of endeavouring to see that an hon.s Member shall come into this House on account of ability and irrespective of means. The complexion and outlook of this side of the House has changed very greatly. Today, there are a minority of what are called trade union Members. The majority of hon. Members —I speak subject to correction on this— are very much younger. I think the average age of hon. Members of this Party at the moment is between 43 and 45. It is also true that we have, in the Party on this side, among back benchers supporting the Government, a large group of what can be called middle-class people, but with this important difference —and it is essential to remember it in discussing this Motion—that these hon. Members who are now described as middle-class are not, in the majority of cases, the middle-class which is generally conceived as being middle-class by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

They are, in fact, the first generation of working-class parents with secondary and university education. The result is that, although they come into this House, by nominal standards, as middle class, so far as background, savings, parenthood and amount of capital are concerned, they are not middle class at all.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. What has middle class got to do with this Motion?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to develop his argument in his own way.

Mr. Nally: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for not making the point clear to him. The point I am trying to make is that, although by normal, conventional standards, hon. Members on this side would be regarded as middle class, they have in many cases no resources whatsoever behind them and therefore do not fit into the term " middle class " as it is normally used. Let us face the facts plainly. I have other sources of income apart from my House of Commons salary, but I want to put forward some specific cases of others who have not.
First, I put Case A. For the first six weeks in London, an hon. Member of this House lived in a curious place in Euston Road at a cost of 5s. 6d. a night because he could not afford to pay more than that. I want to give Case B, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with a record of distinguished service, who came into this House direct from the Forces, and who was proceeding, in November of last year, to sell the house that he and his wife had bought in order to meet the expenses of continuing to be a Member of Parliament. Take a third case, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with an equally distinguished war record, in this case, in the R.A.F., who was taking steps, on his savings running out, to borrow money from his father in order to continue his work in this House. That is an incredible situation, and we really cannot have it. I am very grateful, on behalf of these hon. Members, for the speeches of the hon. (Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the Senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay). They were both thoughtful speeches worthy of the issue we are discussing.
I conclude on this note. It is a delicate matter that we are debating—this raising of our own salaries. I have talked in my own constituency about it, and have stated, plainly and frankly, what the position is. The House of Commons is no longer a kind of convalescent home for trade union leaders as was sometimes said. It is equally, I hope, no longer a place to which wealthy company directors can come because of their ability to buy up the divisional Tory associations in the country. In short, the character of the House has changed as the country has changed. I believe that the Motion before it will give an opportunity to young men, irrespective of political opinion, of coming into the House and serving it faithfully, well and efficiently. That is the most important thing which has hitherto not been provided, and, therefore, I trust the House will give unanimous support to the Motion now before it.

9.46 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out " day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six," and to insert:
 Sitting Day of the next Parliament.
This Amendment is not the kind of Amendment which one often gets on the Second Reading of a Bill to the effect that "The Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months."That is not its purpose; its purpose is to postpone from this Parliament to the next the implementing of the Report of the Select Committee or, rather, of the Motion now before the House. We agree that it is desirable that emoluments of hon. Members should be increased to £ 1,000, or some such similar substantial sum, in order that they may carry on their work in an efficient manner. The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was incorrect in assuming that this Amendment meant that the decision which will be made today was to be left until after the next General Election. He was wrong to assume that it is our intention that this should be put before the people at the next Election. We agree that the Motion should be passed now, but not implemented until the next Parliament.
Certain hon Members have come to me and said, "This Amendment which you are moving is a very unpopular thing. Why are you doing it?"The

fact that a thing happens to be unpopular is not a leason for not moving it. Other hon. Members have come to me and said, " Why are you doing this? It will neither help you nor lose you any votes at the next Election because, by that time, all this will have been forgotten "—as, indeed, it will. Again, I say, surely we can take action in this House without always thinking whether or not we are to gain or lose votes. I am moving this Amendment tonight because I agree so much with what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said.
I believe that the dignity and esteem in which Parliament is held are worthy of the utmost support of this House. I know that some hon. Members agree with me on this point and that some differ, but I believe that the dignity and esteem of Parliament, and its prestige, will be lowered, if it is said of us that one of the first things we did when we were returned to Parliament was to increase our own salaries.

Mr. Kirkwood: The first thing we did was to nationalise the Bank of England.

Sir W. Wakefield: Very well, then, one of the first things we did before the first year of Parliament was out was to increase our own salaries. I know that hon. Members have made the point that it is only Members of this House who can increase their own salaries. Of course it is. But do not let us increase our salaries. Let us talk about an increase for the next Parliament in which we do not know whether we will be sitting. If we do that we will maintain the honour, prestige and dignity of Parliament in a way which we are not now doing. Would an increase in our salaries be consistent with some of the things which are happening today, such as were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Pres-cott) who referred to the fact that officers' and widows' pensions, etc., have not been increased? There is feeling in the country about this. I have two sons-in-law, both in the Services. One is in the Royal Navy and the other is in the Army. As a result of recent so-called increases, which to them, because of their ranks, were not increases, they said to me, " We see you are greatly to increase your pay while ours has been decreased."These are important points which we in this House should not overlook.
The Chancellor has said how important it is to maintain the standard of living and to avoid inflation. One of the ways of creating inflation is for wages and salaries to continue to increase. Is it not right that we should give a lead in this matter? How can we give a lead when we increase our own salaries? It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the financial crisis of 1931 this House reduced Members emoluments to £ 360. That ought not to be forgotten, and I suggest that rather than increase our emoluments, we ought to consider reducing them as a lead to the rest of the country. I know that hardship exists among certain Members, and because I am not affected in the same degree, it is difficult and embarrassing for me to move this Amendment. It is not a happy or a pleasant task, but because it is not happy or pleasant we should not shirk doing it. I do not know whether it is possible during this Parliament for some scheme to be arranged whereby hon. Members who are in difficulties can be helped from the Pension Fund which, I understand, is in very great funds. With increased salaries in the next Parliament we could always contribute more if need be. I throw out that suggestion as one way in which that difficulty might be overcome.
I understand there are certain objections to this Amendment. The first is that we cannot commit the next Parliament. If that is a technical objection my Amendment can easily be altered to apply to the last day of this Parliament. I do not think that is a valid objection. Another objection is that unless salaries are increased, new candidates of the required caliber will not be able to come forward. Surely, that is not so, because new candidates will know that in the new Parliament they will receive £ 1,000 a year. Another objection is that expenses are now very much greater than they were. I do not think that that is so since the General Election. We all entered as candidates at the last Election knowing what our emoluments were to be and being, as Members of Parliament, responsible individuals, also knowing what our liabilities were likely to be. Surely it will not be suggested that anybody will lightheartedly take up the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament without, first of all, considering what he or she is to get and what the expenses may be? There has been no considerable increase in ex-

penses during the last 12 months, and so I cannot see the validity of that objection.
Again, there has been the objection that hon. Members cannot do their duties efficiently at the present rate of emoluments. Well, coal miners, dockyard workers and many other people also think that they cannot do their duties efficiently, and want an increase in wages. So I do not see that there is any validity in that objection. It has also been suggested, that if we vote for this Amendment we are in duty bound not to take any increased salary. Well, suppose some of us in this House disagreed with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Suppose the Chancellor decided that he was going to reduce the tax on beer and some of us, while delighted from a personal point of view, nevertheless, from the national point of view thought his decision was wrong. Should we take advantage of the reduction in the tax on beer? Of course, we should.

Mr. Dalton: Have an extra pint, and why not?

Sir W. Wakefield: So I do not think there is any validity in that objection. This is a democracy; we make our protests, we then accept the ruling of the majority. I conclude by saying that I have moved this Amendment because I believe that it is desirable that this House should not, as a matter of principle, vote within its lifetime an increase in its own salary. Let us vote the increase, but let it be for our successors and not for ourselves.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.
As the Chancellor and other hon. Members have said, this is a somewhat delicate question, and nothing could be more embarrassing for me, or I am sure for other hon. Members, than that I should speak at length on my own personal affairs, so I will dismiss that aspect of the matter in a couple of sentences. In the first place, I should like to say that I am by no means a rich man; I am not a payer of Surtax, nor am I the recipient of any inherited wealth, and therefore the emoluments I receive are by no means a matter of indifference to me. As for the second and purely personal point, I had not the intention to refer to it, but as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W.


Wakefield) and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) did refer to it, I will say simply for myself, and passing no judgment on any other hon. Member whose personal circumstance may differ from mine, that I have already given a public pledge that, in the event of this extra money being voted, I shall not myself take it.
Having got that out of the way, may I turn to the more general issue? I am the more emboldened to speak a few words because what seems to me to be the all-important point, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), has not been much emphasised. The point that strikes me as all-important is that of timeliness. There is nothing sacrosanct in the figure of £ 600 a year, and I have no objection, in principle, to the sum being raised to £ 1,000. The only question present to my mind is whether this is a timely moment for doing it.
This increase has been defended broadly upon two grounds, slightly different from one another. On the one hand some hon. Members say it is justified in order to keep pace with the rising cost of living. My answer to that is that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in the Budget Debate when he pointed out that the official figure for the rise in the cost of living was 31 per cent. But we are not asking for ourselves for an increase of 31 per cent., but for an increase of 66 per cent. I am perfectly agreeable to accept the argument used by many hon. Members that the rise in the cost of living has been very much greater than 31 per cent. But it is extremely dangerous to Parliamentary prestige that while an increase of 31 per cent. is quoted for the general public the figure of 66 per cent. should be used for our own purposes. The other ground upon which this is defended is that the salary is. in any case, inadequate. There again I do not quarrel with hon. Members who maintain that argument as a general proposition. I am simply arguing the timeliness. Is this the time, when every day we are preaching about the dangers of inflation, when every day we are appealing to workers not to press for wage increases until the country has got back on its feet, to put ourselves at the front of the queue for increases? I will read a passage that puts this point as well as I have ever seen it put:

Before the war, when there was general unemployment, all wage increases that could be extracted by the Trade Unions from unwilling employers were not only to the advantage of the workers concerned but also to the advantage of every one else as well What, then, is the effect of an increase in wages at the present time? The truth is that while extreme shortage lasts wage increases for one section of industry are liable to raise costs of production and be passed on in higher prices to the consumers, so that the original increase is at the expense of workers in other sections of industry as well as at the expense of citizens as a whole. And once prices begin going up there may be a general demand for wage increases to meet the increased cost of living, the further wage increases raise the cost of living again, and the vicious spiral is at work. In such circumstances wage increases may even be positively harmful to the community. That is why, from the point of view of the nation, restraint should be exercised about pressing for indiscriminate wage increases.
That pamphlet was issued by Transport House to the trade unionists of this country. It is entitled "Fair Shares of Scarce Goods."

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Member reading that passage in order to prove that, if we are to get an increase in salary, the price of HANSARD will go up?

Mr. Hollis: That was not my purpose. If the hon. Member will wait he will see what I was seeking to prove. My purpose was, surely, a very much clearer one. If we give increases to ourselves at a time when we might be under the necessity of refusing increases to other people we are putting ourselves in an extremly difficult position. My point is whether this is a timely moment for such a policy. The only strong argument on the other side —and it is a very strong argument indeed —is that there are certain hon. Members in this House who find real difficulty in carrying on their work in the present circumstances. That is an argument with which we must all be entirely sympathetic. I would like to put it in a slightly different form from that in which some hon. Members have put it. Sometimes people say— it seems to be a rather strange way of putting it—that whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that Parliament should be a fulltime occupation, at any rate, we have to face the fact that it has become so.
It seems to me that the fact is exactly the opposite; that is to say, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that it should be a full-time occupation, it ob-


viously is not, as a matter of fact, a full-time occupation, because there is a large number of Members in all quarters of the House who do carry on other occupations. Anyone would be very bold who argued that the contributions of those Members to the life of Parliament were less valuable and less effective than those of the average hon. Member, In fact I should be inclined to think anybody who has sufficient ability to serve his country in this House, can find some way or another of slightly adding to his remuneration but I am more concerned with another and more important class of person—the person who prefers not to receive remuneration because he fears to compromise his integrity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman put the point of the Amendment admirably at the beginning of his speech but he is now departing from it. The point of this Amendment is timing. It is the timing only that we can discuss. We cannot go into the subject generally.

Mr. Hollis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was going to refer to the very valuable evidence given before the Committee by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies). I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance, and so I do not know whether he is in his place or not; but he was the only person who gave evidence before the Committee who was in the position of being entirely dependent upon his salary, and one reason for which I am supporting the Amendment may be found in the words he spoke in his evidence before the Committee. Having described the difficulties of the position, he said:
I do not say some amendment in out monetary payment ought not to become operative during this Parliament, but I should think there is much to be said for the provision which says that it shall operate at a subsequent date, perhaps in the next Parliament.
That the hon. Member should be willing to consider postponement seemed to me a very strong argument for postponement.
There is another point. Some hon. Members have said there is nothing improper in our effecting a change now because there is the precedent of 1937. I do not want to offend by developing that point, but my answer to it is that many people believe today—I happen to be one of them—that it is not invariably valuable to balance the Budget, and that sometimes, when there is unem-

ployment and under-production for instance, it is desirable to put out new money. But there are other times when conditions are the opposite. The period of 1937 was one in which to put out new money, a period in which it might not be a great harm to put out some of it to Members of Parliament. But the position is exactly the opposite now. Therefore, in seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment, all I am insisting upon is the element of time.
In a few years' time, when we are all more prosperous, when every class in the community is more prosperous, there is no reason in the world why the salary of Members of this House should not be advanced, in the same way as the salaries of others and in accordance with the general standard of living of the country. We should be the last persons, so it seems to me, now to increase our salaries, and we should in courtesy see that we deliver the goods of this new world we are here to create to the rest of the community, before we take them ourselves. We should take a lowly rather than a high place in the queue.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I rise to support the Amendment. It has caused me some difficulty to reach this decision. At this time we should not take steps to raise our own salaries. After all, we took on a contract 12 months ago, and we should put up with its conditions for some further time. If this proposal had been suggested in two years' time, it would have been quite a different thing. My decision to support the Amendment was principally reached because I am convinced that at some time someone will be standing at that Box to deal with the question of inflation. Someone will be saying that wages must not rise further. The Government are allowing wages to increase day by day, and this proposal is, in fact, a proposal to raise our own wages. When the time comes, we shall have to tell the wage earners of this country, that for their own salvation their wages must be " pegged " and I think that we shall put ourselves in a very poor light by supporting this proposal at this stage. Sooner or later this rise in wages has to be stopped, or else the £ will be in the same position as the Mark was in Germany after the last war. We are in an inflationary period. It may be said that it can and


will be controlled, but it will not be controlled if we continue to raise the cost of wages.

Mr. Speaker: This is hardly relevant to the Amendment, which deals with timing and nothing else.

Mr. Baldwin: I was endeavouring to support the Amendment, which provides that no immediate rise should be made in the salaries of hon. Members of this House. I feel sure that if we want to show an example to the people of this country, the right thing to do is not to increase our salaries at this stage. That is why I suggest it should be put off until some further time has elapsed.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower: I will detain the House for only a very short time, because this matter has been under discussion now for nearly three hours, but I wish to give my reasons for supporting the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I believe that the duties of a Member in this House cannot be genuinely performed under £ 1,000 per annum, but at the same time—I must stress time in my remarks—I do not believe this is the time to raise our salaries.
I would emphasise that at this time there are many pensioners left with incomes of £300 to £400 a year who find it very difficult to live as they used to do a few years ago When at this time there are so many rises in wages, we cannot support a rise in our own. It will be timely to consider a rise at the next Election. People will then have had time to consider whether a rise in our salaries is or is not justified. I would remind the House that, as so many clubs have been bombed, this is one of the few remaining clubs to which it is a privilege to belong, where we have valuable contacts with people of all views, and we should be prepared to make sacrifices to belong to it.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I was much touched by the argument advanced on behalf of this Amendment that the proposed increase is untimely, and that somehow or other it would have an inflationary effect. Nothing could show a greater

lack of understanding of this important question of inflation. Inflation can be caused by a very large increase of spending. But increasing Members' salaries does not mean widespread increase of spending. Inflation can also be caused by the vicious spiral, and that, as I indicated very clearly in a question to the seconder of the Amendment, does not work in relation to this particular matter. Our salaries could be increased right now, and our products would not go up in price. The question we should be asking is not whether the increase is to be today, tomorrow, next year, or next Parliament, but whether the Members are worth the money. I am reminded of an elderly gentleman, not unknown to Members of this House, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, who, at Bow Street, when standing bail for a certain gentleman was asked by the magistrate: "Are you worth £200? " Mr. Shaw said, "I would not like to say that, but I have got £ 200."The question we have to ask is: " Are hon. Members worth it? " My last sentence, and it is an important one, is that when I look at the Members on this side of the House, I am satisfied that they are worth it; but when I look at the Members on the other side, I am very doubtful.

The Speaker: We have had over three hours' discussion on this matter. It is, after all, a free vote, and we surely do not need to have unlimited speeches.

10.19 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as speeches in favour of the Amendment have been made from this side of the House and as I happen to be opposed to the Amendment, I should have an opportunity to express very briefly my reasons for being unable to give a silent vote on this issue? If I find myself on the same ground as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I hasten to assure the hon. Member that that is not because I am making any application for affiliation to the Communist Party. As a Member of the Select Committee, which owed so much to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith), and which sat for many days considering these matters, may I say with the greatest good temper to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that they and those who think like them missed


not.one bus but two. The first opportunity they had for putting their view arose when the Motion for setting up the Select Committee was before the House. That was the first bus. The second bus was the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee, an invitation having been sent to every hon. Member of this House, of which a great number availed themselves. The evidence of those hon. Members was considered with great patience for many days, and the arguments put forward were carefully investigated.

Sir W. Wakefield: I replied to the invitation to give evidence before the Committee, and I sat waiting to be called.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am quite sure the hon. Member did, but how can one call on a vacuum? The hon. Member submitted no memorandum. We heard— and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) can endorse this— the views of individual Members like the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and others who had something to submit to the Committee. It is rather late in the day now to put forward this point of view.

Sir W. Wakefield: Why have a Debate at all?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: If the hon. Member puts down an Amendment and moves it, the reason for having a Debate is to give an opportunity to others to refuse it. What is the point of having a Select Committee? I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to lapse into irrelevancies. To my mind the reason for the urgency of this matter, and the reason why we should reject this Amendment to postpone the increase in Members' salaries, rests upon two main pillars. First, I refute the argument that we knew what we were letting ourselves in for when we stood for election or re-election at the General Election. It is said that the new Members who came here knew the conditions. This happens to be my third Parliament. I did not know what I was letting myself in for at the General Election.

Sir W. Wakefield: A complete vacuum.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: And I will give the reasons. This Parliament is not like previous Parliaments. We are not engaged in Party arguments tonight,

but I certainly did not realise we were to be driven 14 hours a day by the Leader of the House. I did not realise that Standing Committees were going to sit with the intensity with which they are sitting with three or four main Bills going through concurrently. May I add that I had not the slightest conception that there was to be the increase which has been taken place in my post bag? It has been argued that this is transitory, and that the same thing happened in 1919 and 1920 when demobilisation was going on. That may be, but I was not here then. But whether that be so or not, I suggest that that argument falls to the ground, for this reason: Whatever may be the merit or demerits of nationalisation or State control, this can be admitted—that the wider the field of State control, the greater becomes a Member's correspondence. However efficiently our industries may be run by the State, a great many people will have complaints to make, and cases to submit to us. That is something I did not anticipate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for St. Maryle-bone anticipated that, but I did not. I believed that our side would win the Election; perhaps he anticipated the awful thing that did happen.
I am particularly anxious to put two points before this vote is taken. Whatever my hon. Friends who support the Amendment may do, I hope there is one reason which will not weigh with them. I have looked at the Order Paper, and I think it would be a pity if a number of Members who have the good fortune to reside in what may be described as the upper Surtax levels, and for whom this increase will mean just " chicken feed ' —or, as the right hon. Gentleman has now re-entered the Chamber perhaps I should say, " Chancellor feed "—took up the attitude which is known, in Service parlance, as " Damn you, Jack, I'm all right."I hope nobody will vote tonight on those grounds. Something has been said about what our constituents will think. I know what my constituents would think if I endeavoured to get the best of both worlds tonight, by voting for a postponement of salary increase, and then going with outstretched hands to the Fees Office. I think the proper course is that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) at the beginning of this Debate. The tax on a pint of beer is a tax which is in-


curred when you drink the beer. There has never been any obligation on Members to draw a single penny of their salary. I believe the Chancellor, who has been here longer than I have been, will recall cases of Members who, on what may be described as conscientious grounds, returned their salaries to the Treasury —

Mr. Dalton: Yes, some have done that.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I believe there were some who, on the last occasion when there was an increase, drew £400 a year, and did not take the extra £200. That is the honourable course for those who object to it. There is no compulsion. If they feel that this is wrong, and if they are so fortunate as to be able to get on without it, surely their remedy is clear. I do not propose to do that. I believe this increase is overdue, and I will tell the House, briefly, why I think so, and why it is urgent. Sometimes I walk through the Library late at night, and I see Members, not confined to any one party, writing letters in longhand at 11 o'clock, and taking copies. That tells me immediately, without having any interest in their correspondence, that they are being debarred from spending the necessary time in the Chamber listening to Debates, from a proper study of the OFFICIAL REPORT and White Papers, from proper Parliamentary reading, and from keeping up to date with political opinion by reading various journals which we ought to study, particularly those published by our political opponents. One often gets a theme for a speech in this way. But this cannot be done under present conditions.
Then, a Member should have an efficient secretary. A good secretary is worth

all of £250 a year, and cheap at the price. Postage has risen to an enormous extent, and I must ally myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds on this matter. My right hon. Friend—if I may still call him so despite this temporary difference of opinion—said he was making a difficult speech. So am I. It is always rather embarrassing for a Member to find applause for his remarks coming from the opposite benches, while there is silence or implied disapproval among his own friends. [HON. MEMBERS: " Not all."] It is a difficult situation; I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows that if nobody else does. As one who was on the Select Committee may I say finally that I believe the Report presents an honourable solution of an extremely difficult problem. It was a unanimous Report of men of differing views and temperaments—it would be difficult to select a wider range of opinions in the House than was represented on the Committee. Its recommendations are such as will enable us to perform our duties with dignity but without luxury. I therefore propose to go into the Lobby in support of this immediate increase, and to defend it in my constituency, and I believe my people will understand it. I believe they will understand that I am doing something to defend this Parliamentary system which has survived so many storms. Hitler tried to pull us down, and so did many others. But there is only one thing that could smash the British House of Commons and that is for us to bang, bolt and bar our doors against men of ability, just because they are without financial resources.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 26.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[10.32 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Balfour, A.
Boothby. R


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bottomley, A. G.


Agnew, Cmdr. P, G.
Barstow, P. G
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W


Aitkan, Hon. Max
Bartlett, V.
Bowen, R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Barton, C.
Bower, N


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Allighan, Garry
Bennett, Sir P.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)


Alpass, J. H.
Benson, G.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Berry, H.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Andersen, F (Whitehaven)
Bing, G. H. C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Attor, Hon. M.
Binns, J.
Brown, George (Belper)


Attewell, H. C.
Blackburn, A. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Aweary, S. S.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Ayles, W. H.
Blyton, W. R.
Burden, T. W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Boardman, H.
Burke, W. A.




Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'td'n)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Hardman, D. R.
Morley, R.


Callaghan, James
Hardy, E. A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Carson, E.
Harris, H. Wilson
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Harrison, J.
Mort, D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Moyle, A.


Chater, D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murray, J, D.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Haworlh, J.
Nally, W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Cobb, F. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cocks, F. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nicholson, G.


Coldrick, W
Hewitson, Capt. M
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Collick, P.
Hicks, G.
Noel Buxton, Lady


Collindridge, F.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
O'Brien, T.


Collins, V. J.
Hobson, C. R
Oldfield, W. H.


Colman, Miss G, M
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Oliver, G. H


Comyns, Dr. L.
Holman, P.
Orbach, M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orr-Ewing, I, L


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Horabin, T. L,
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
House, G.
Palmer, A. M. F,


Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Hoy, J.
Pargiler, G. A.


Coded, Dr. J.
Hubbard, T.
Parker, J.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Peart, Capt. T. F


Crossman, R. H S.
Hurd, A
Perrins, W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.


Daggar, G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Popplewell, E.


Daines, P.
Irving, W. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Prescott. Stanley


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Janner, B.
Price-White, Lt.-Col D


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pritt, D. N.


Davies, Haydn (St. Panoras, S.W.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W- (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Pryde, D. J.


Davies, S. O. (Msrthyr)
Jennings, R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dmr, G.
John, W.
Raikes, H. V.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Janes, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Randall, H E.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitehin)
Ranger, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W
Rankin, J.


Dribers T. E. h.
Keenan, W.
Reeves, J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Kenyon, C.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Durbin, E. F M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Dye, S.
Kinley, J.
Robens, A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Rogers, G. H. R.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lang, G.
Royle, C.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S
Sargood, R.


Evans, E, (Lowestoft)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Scollan, T.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Segal, Dr. S


Fairhurst, F.
Leslie, J. R,
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Farthing, W. J.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Follick, M.
Lindgren, G, S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Foot, M. M.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Forman, J. C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Simmons, C. J.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington, A. M.


Fraser, Sir 1. (Lonsdale)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)
Low, Brig. A. R W
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C
Lyno, A. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Gaitskell, H. T. N
McEntee, V. La T
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Gallacher, W.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibbtns, J.
MoLeavy, F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Gibson, C. W
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Gilzean, A.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stakes, R. R.


Gooch, E. G.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stross, Dr. B.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Sutcliffe, H.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Swingler, S.


Grenfell, D. R.
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grey, C. F.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)


Grierson, E.
Maude, J. C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J, (Llanelly)
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Most Side)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Gunter, Capt. R. J
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Guy, W. H.
Molson, A. H. E
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hale, Leslie
Montague, F.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Hall, W. G. (Coins Valley)
Moody, A. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)







Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Warbey, W N
Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Tiffany, S.
Watkins, T. E
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Timmons, J.
Weitzntan D.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Titterington, M. F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Tolley, L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Wise, Major F. J.


Turner-Samuels, M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woodburn, A.


Ungoed-Thomas, L
White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Yates, V F.


Usborne, Henry
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Vornon, Mai W. F.
Wilkes, Maj. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Viant, S. P.
Wilkins, W. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Walkden, E.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)



Walker, G. H
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Mr. McKinlay and Lieut.- Commander Gurney Bratthwaite.


Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)





NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McCallum, Maj. D
Thomson, Sir D, (Aberdeen, s.)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Medlicott, F.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C
Mellor, Sir J.
Vane, W. M. T.


Duthie, W. S.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bueklow)



Henderson, John (Cathoart)
Snadden, W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hutchison, Col, J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Sir Wavell Wakefield and Mr. Hollis.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)



Resolution agreed to.

Resolved:
 That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient,—
(a) that provision should be made, as from the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six, for the payment of salaries to Members of this House—
(i) at the rate of one thousand pounds a year, except in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary as a Minister of the Crown, an officer of His Majesty's Household, or an officer of this House or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury;
(ii) at the rate of five hundred pounds a year in the case of a Member who is for the time being in receipt of a salary less than five thousand pounds a year as a Minister of the Crown, or in receipt of a salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household or as Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and 'Means or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension as a person who has been Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury:
(b) that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to Members of this House;
(c) That Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a committee to advise him on the application of the rules and practice governing the payment of travelling expenses of Members of this House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when travelling on the official business of this House;
(d) that provision should be made for enabling Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their parliamentary duties."

MINISTERIAL SALARIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time. —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

10.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I will not detain the House long, but I would say on this Bill that we have been dealing so far this evening, with what one might call the rank and file. We are now come to those who are alternatively called the second eleven, or the non-commissioned officers, and, however you look upon them, there are some of us, at any rate on this side of the House, who have long thought that they were highly deserving people.
It is very necessary, in the view of all my hon. Friends, that something should be done to assist the junior Ministers. It has been a matter of discussion for a very considerable time, and—I do not know if it is a matter of general knowledge, but anyhow hon. Gentlemen can take it from some of us who know about these things— there have been, in the course of years, a number of occasions when lion. Members of this House have been proposed by their leaders for office in junior ranks, and found themselves unable to accept because they were either professionally engaged or engaged in business, and at the time were perhaps paying for the education of their children, or looking after somebody, or had some family responsibilities. Because of the fact that they would have to take


office at £1,500 a year or, as it is in two cases—until this Bill is passed—£1,200 a year, and, in the case of Whips, even less, and give up all other sources of income, they were unable to contemplate the change. I have no doubt there are many instances in which public service, or administration in the public sphere, has lost as a result of the treatment that has been afforded junior Ministers. It is therefore very timely that this House, having dealt with the generality of Members, should now pass on to this similar, but really very important, section of the community.
The suggestion to raise the salaries of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Pensions has our approval. I am not so sure that the proposal of raising that of the Chancellor of the Duchy is quite such a neat arrangement because, of course, he is not paid out of public funds, but the result of this proposal is that the deficit will come on the Votes. So, for the first time, his salary will be questionable in the House. Of course I see the advantage from our point of view so long as he holds office in conjunction with responsibilities in Germany, but I still think that as a matter of pure administration, it would have been neater if he had been given one of the other sinecures, and the Chancellor of the Duchy had been allowed to remain in its historic position. The Chancellor looks worried, but I think I am right in saying there has been no political appointment to the office of Paymaster General and therefore an office could have been found, without raising his salary for the Chancellor of the Duchy.
The proposal for the appointment of a Deputy Chief Whip seems only common sense. We all know there are bound to be grades of importance and of responsibility in the Whips' office, and it is for the convenience of both sides of the House that one should know definitely who is the deputy to the Patronage Secretary. To all that we have no objection, but I would like to ask the Chancellor to say something about this question of raising, by £ 500 year all round, the allowance of junior Ministers. We have agreed just now to raise to £ 1,000 the salary or allowance or whatever you like to call it of Members of this House, but junior Ministers' salaries are to be increased by £500, and those of Cabinet Ministers by nothing at all. They are

the orphans of the storm. I want to put to the Chancellor something which it would be a little awkward for him to put to the House himself. It is this. The purpose of the extra £500 to the junior Ministers is, to some extent, to enable them to have the " office " of a Member of Parliament by which they can charge their expenses against Income Tax. That, in theory, is the only thing against which expenses " wholly, exclusively and necessarily "Incurred in the course of an office can be charged. As, therefore, they have not been holding office as Members of Parliament, there is nothing in Income Tax law against which they can charge their expenses. I do not know why it has been put at £500, and why not at the more logical figure of the full thousand. When one looks at the return given to the Select Committee, one finds on the level of £550 to £600, that 47 per cent. of those who claimed, paid that amount in expenses, and between £500 and £550, 10 per cent. That means that 57 per cent, of those claiming are above the £500. It would seem that many junior Ministers might be in the same category. But I do put it to the Chancellor that he would get no great measure of complaint from us on this side of the House if he looked at Cabinet Ministers from that angle. Surely Cabinet Ministers are, from experience, " wholly, exclusively and necessarily " concerned with their duties connected with this House, and while it may be said that £5,000 is a sufficient salary for a Cabinet Minister, if they have the same expenses as we Private Members have, they should be able to charge that against their Income Tax assessment as junior Ministers will do up to £500 a year
It is very awkward, I know, for Cabinet Ministers to put that point, and I should like to hear what the Chancellor says can be done about it. If Ministers feel they should not raise their maximum from £5,000 could not a Clause be inserted enabling them to sub-divide their £5,000 into £4,000 for the " office " of the Cabinet Minister, and £1,000 for the " office " of Member of Parliament? If that were so, they would be on the same basis as the rest of us. They could then split up the Under-Secretaries in the same way, and if their expenses should run over the £500 we are going to give them, they would have something against which they could claim.
It is, I think, important to consider these matters even though it is a late hour, just as it has been important to establish that hon. Members— as the House has just agreed— should not be put into the position of not being able to keep the reasonable dignity which one couples with this House. If that is true of the generality, I do not see why it should not be true of those who have the good fortune to serve His Majesty as Ministers on that Bench. Therefore, if it is possible to do it in this Bill by some redrafting, I should be very happy to see it done. If that is not possible, I should be very happy if the Chancellor would consider it and not be too backward in coming forward with some such proposal in order to put junior and senior Ministers on exactly the same level as other hon. Members of this House. After all, in the long run we are all Members of Parliament even if some of us hold more distinguished posts than others. I should add that we on this side do not, of course, propose to divide on this Bill.

10.56 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I was a Member of the Select Committee and, of course, it would be grossly out of Order for any Member of that Committee to say what influenced the Committee in coming to its decision. There is, however, I think, nothing out of Order in saying what was present in the mind of the Member who is speaking—if I may put it in that roundabout way. The need for a rise in junior Ministers' salaries was very much present in my mind, and possibly it had some impact on my hon. colleagues in the Committee, that this should be done. I want to raise two points which are of a rather delicate character. I hope I shall deal with them in a way which will offend nobody. If I do not, then I shall have failed in my task. I think they are matters which should be brought out. Since the Committee reported, information has reached me—I do not know whether it is accurate or not— that Members of the Government, including the junior Ministers who are affected by this Bill, are in possession of advantages. I think the word " advantages "Is the most mild and inoffensive word I can use. They are advantages which were not in the possession of the Cabinet or of junior Ministers before the war, but which were in the possession of most Ministers during the war. I refer,

for example, to lodging in Government offices. I understand some Ministers enjoy lodging in Government offices—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.Dalton): Junior Ministers?

Earl Winterton: Well, I am asking for the information. It would, I think, be out of Order to deal with those who receive £5,000, but I should like to say for the benefit of those hon. Members who are not acquainted with the fact, that, of course, before the war there was no such thing as I have indicated. The only Ministers provided with official residences were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty. I can speak from personal experience. Before the war there were not more than three or four official motor cars at the disposal of Members of the Government. I am not sure that there were even so many—

Captain Crookshank: Two.

Earl Winterton: My right hon. and gallant Friend says there were two. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am making no complaint. I am merely raising the matter and asking for information upon it. I understand that a great number of Ministers are in possession of official cars. I have no personal experience of this. I have been told, and I see no great harm in it, that they are in the habit of allowing other hon. Members to use those cars. In fact, a cynic told me the other day that if one: gave* a half-crown to the driver, one could always get a lift home in an official car. We should know whether these things are so or not. I think here I have the whole House with me in that. I am certainly making no party point when I say it is most undesirable that there should be anything in the nature of what I might call a hidden subsidy or perquisite.
Here I would illustrate what I am saying— and of course I am not suggesting there is any resemblance between the two cases. In the course of a long official experience, I happen to have been Paymaster General. A permanent official at the Paymaster General's office once said to me: "In the days of one of your predecessors, 120 years ago, he, like you, received no salary, but he actually had emoluments of £70,000 a year, and these emoluments were recognised as quite


reasonable for his office." He obtained the emoluments, I understand, by means which had something to do with the contracts which he placed. We certainly do not want to go back, in even a minor degree, to the days when Cabinet or other Ministers were in possession of perquisites not known to the public. I thank the hon. Gentlemen opposite for the courteous manner in which they have received my remarks. I assure them I am making no party point, but I do put these two specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor. How many Ministers who are affected by this Bill have lodgings at the expense of the State, that is to say, free lodgings in any Government office? How many Ministers are provided with motor cars?
I pass to a slightly more controversial point by referring to something said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank). It is controversial in the sense that, in the Debate on 27th November, 1945, when the Chancellor, in reply to a question put by my right hon. and gallant Friend, said that Ministers of Cabinet rank were provided with motor cars, my right hon. and gallant Friend made a computation— into which I do not propose to go at length— which showed that free use of a motor car meant a considerable increment to anyone's salary in these days. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend put the figure at least £1,000 a year. There is another matter to which I meant to refer earlier. The other day I heard —and I must say it was disturbing to me—that even when not on official duty, that is to say, when not travelling to perform the functions of their office, it was possible for Ministers, junior and senior, to obtain what I would call free lifts in R.A.F. machines.

Mr. Dalton: R.A.F. machines?

Earl Winterton: Well, in R.A.F. aeroplanes. I hope that is not so, because certainly this House has never sanctioned any hon. Member, or for that matter any Minister who is not a Defence Minister, travelling anywhere in an R.A.F. machine unless on highly, important official duty. Once again, I thank the House for listening to these observations of mine on a rather delicate subject. I believe I have the whole House with me in saying that if there are any hidden perquisites, of the

kind to which I have made reference, they should be disclosed at once, and hon. Members should have an opportunity of making up their minds whether they want them to remain or not. My advice, most humbly given, is that rather than have any hidden perquisites there should be a further rise in Ministers' salaries.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will excuse me if I do not follow him on this particular matter. I have never been on the Front Bench on either side of the House, but I have had the honour of occupying the Chair, and I would like to put this suggestion from that point of view. I think the only way of dealing with this matter is to give the clear £1,000 a year to a Member of Parliament, whether he be an officer of the House or a Member of the Government or not. Let us all, as Members of the House of Commons, rank equally as far as that £1,000 is concerned. I think that should be the basic figure, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said. I would then add to that the sum which we consider necessary—I am not arguing that—for the payment of Ministers; say, £4,000 a year instead of the present £5,000, or whatever it may be. I would emphasise that, in the best interests of the House, I think it absolutely essential that all hon. Members, as Members of Parliament, should be paid precisely the same salary, and officers of the House and Cabinet Ministers should be paid an additional sum to cover the work they have to perform beyond their work as Members of Parliament.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): It is refreshing to have a Measure commended to the House upon its merits, and not merely on the ground that it is a necessary promulgation of the terms of " Let Us Face The Future," as if this House existed for the automatic ratification of that document—with certain exceptions such as, of course, the friendly societies—and was not entitled to discuss matters on their merits. The Bill before the House, in its somewhat genial if confused benevolence, embraces the Postmaster-General. I am perfectly certain that I shall have hon. Members opposite with me when I say that I have


always believed in the policy of the wage for the job. What is the job? Last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that he did not know whether the Postmaster-General was or was not to have responsibility for the telecommunications of the Empire. How can this House possibly assess the proper remuneration of the Postmaster-General unless it knows what his job is going to be? I would respectfully suggest that if the Postmaster-General is to have this enormous additional responsibility of running the telecommunications of the Empire, the proposals contained in this Bill are ludicrously inadequate. If, on the other hand, he is not to have this responsibility, and is to continue merely to run a not frightfully well conducted Department, then other considerations apply.
One other consideration is that that Department is already charging extraordinarily high prices for the services it runs with the 2½d. post. On that point I am sure that the House would be assisted by the quotation of one sentence from no less a person than the Minister of Supply, who in another Debate, which will be fresh in the recollection of the House, said:
If, under a monopoly, prices and profits rise simultaneously, it is clear that the public is not getting a square deal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May,1946; Vol. 423, c. 846.]
Prices, we know, have risen in the Postmaster-General's Department, and it appears that profits are also to rise. It seems a little inconsistent with the high principle enunciated by the Minister of Supply the other day, for his colleague to come forward with another view to ensure that profits follow high prices in an upward spiral. There is another point of some interest. It is that within the broad and generous arms of this Bill is also embraced the Minister of Pensions. Hon. Members are aware of the deep dissatisfaction which exists among ex-Servicemen on the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Hon. Members are aware of the fact that there is a Motion on the Order Paper, in the names of some 70 Members, asking for a Select Committee on War Pensions. We are told that there is no time for that, but there is apparently time to raise the salary of the Minister of Pensions. Although charity proverbially begins at home, I feel that a certain number

of those miserably remunerated and wounded ex-Servicemen will not view with any great enthusiasm the fact that the only increase in pension expenditure is in favour of the Minister himself.

11.9 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr.Dalton): I do not wish to delay any longer the reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage I told the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the questions he raised on the salaries of the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Pensions are quite appropriate Committee points. I will not say more now, except to add that when the Committee stage is reached, I shall be very happy to reply to the hon. Member's arguments, if he will put down an Amendment. I think that that would be the most appropriate stage for a discussion on this question.
The noble Lord asked me two questions. He considered them rather delicate, but he put them quite courteously. I have no difficulty in replying to his questions, and I think that the answers which I shall give will reassure him, and demonstrate, once more, that " rumour is a lying jade." His two questions concerned Ministers whose total emoluments would be affected by the terms of the Bill. He asked me how many of them have free lodgings in Government offices. The answer is " None."It would be quite improper, and it is not in any single case the practice. The second question was: " How many of the Ministers, similarly affected, have official cars for their own use?"The answer is the same as the answer to the first question—" None."There has been no concealment. I have already given answers in this House on the question of the use of official motorcars. I again state what is the position. An official car is available for the use of every Minister of Cabinet rank, that is to say, Ministers now receiving £5,000 per annum, and two who are affected by the proposed increases, namely, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Pensions. But no junior Minister, and no Minister who is to get this additional £500 allowance under this scheme, with the exception of the two whom I have mentioned—one of whom, the Postmaster-


General, is not a Member of this House— none of these have official cars. In the days of the Coalition, certain junior Ministers, in addition to Ministers of Cabinet rank, had the use of official cars. [An HON. MEMBER: "During the war."] During the war. When this Government arrived, the matter was reviewed, and the rule which I have now stated, and which I have already given to the House in reply to a Parliamentary Question, is that every Minister of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car.

Earl Winterton: In other words, the cars are for the exclusive use of Cabinet Ministers. Might not a Minister of a Service Department say, " We have not got an official car, but we are going to use an Admiralty, an R.A.F. or an Army car?"I want to know whether junior Ministers have the use of official cars, over and above the situation described by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to make this question so clear that there shall be no misunderstanding on the matter. At the same time, this is not in the Bill, and I do not think it right to go on talking too long about it. But I wish to. answer the noble Lord. An official car—I will put it in slightly different language to make it clear—is assigned to the use of each Minister of Cabinet rank and no Minister not of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car assigned to him. It may well be—and it would be quite legitimate in my view—for a junior Minister in a Service Department, who was proceeding with other persons, possibly high officers —Air Marshals, Generals or Admirals, as the case may be—on some official duty connected with the Service of which he was junior Minister, to travel in an official car. Who is going to say, "This man has to walk on his flat feet or hire a taxicab "? What about the dignity of the Services? Certainly not. It would be perfectly proper to travel in an official car on such an occasion. What I have said is that they do not have assigned to them for their use, whenever they require it, an official car.

Mr. Keeling: rose—

Mr. Dalton: We are getting very far from the Bill.

Mr. Keeling: I only want to say that I do not think that the reply which the

right hon. Gentleman has given is the same as the reply which was given in this House not so very long ago, when it was stated that an Air Ministry car called at the New Palace Yard for the purpose of picking up the Under-Secretary of State for Air after he had finished his Parliamentary duties. [An HON. MEMBER: " Why not? "] I am not asking, " Why not? "I am merely saying that the Chancellor's statement is inconsistent with that.

Mr. Dalton: I should like to get back to the Bill. I was anxious to answer the noble Lard the Member for Horsham who was a Member of the Select Committee, and who has done such good work in connection with this matter. [Interruption.] If hon. Members are going to have a hunt round, for something to turn upside down and exaggerate, there is no use dealing with them.

Mr. Keeling: I only wanted to say that the statement of the Chancellor was not correct.

Mr. Dalton: My statement was correct, and if the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of paying attention to me I shall try once more—but only once more—to make it clear. There is no inconsistency between what I have said, and the fact that on a particular occasion, but not for general and exclusive use, a motor car picked up some particular Minister, who had been kept late at work. I say this is an efficient Government and as an efficient Government it is going to take jolly good care that it will not have a Minister stranded here late at night, be cause certain Members prolong the proceedings unreasonably. It will see that a Minister so placed can get home. Having said that, I repeat with the utmost clarity of which I am capable, that cars are assigned for the exclusive use only of Ministers of Cabinet rank, Other Ministers will, from time to time, and quite legitimately, too, travel in a motor car owned by the State. They will do so on specific purposes when the public interest is an issue. They will not necessarily always travel in the same car nor will they always travel in a car with other people. I hope the hon. Gentleman has now got the position clear. If he has not, I despair of him and refer him to the Noble Lord, who, if I may say so, seems to have a more acute perception. With regard to other motor cars—

Captain Crookshank: £5,000 a year rank?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly. I think it is most convenient to carry on in peace time, within the limits I have described, the practice whereby a Minister of Cabinet rank has the use of an official car. That advantage is a point raised against giving these Ministers any addition by way of salary. I think it is better to leave that as an advantage. The Government did not place the question of the Minister with £5,000 a year within the ambit of the inquiry of the Select Committee, nor do we at this stage think that it should be considered further. We have not come here proposing that the position of Ministers receiving £5,000 a year should be improved or altered in any way. We have been concerned with the two other grades, namely, what are called junior Ministers and the private Members of Parliament. With regard to the so-called junior Ministers defined in the Bill, they are to get the advantage of the proposals that we make.

Earl Winterton: What about the question of aeroplanes?

Mr. Dalton: In reply to the noble Lord, may I say I have never heard that suggestion before. If some evidence could be produced, of course we would look into it to see if anything irregular has happened. I do not believe anything irregular has happened, and I think this question has arisen through some jealousy or some little tittle-tattle by some person. There is really nothing in it. Certainly it would be quite wrong for R.A.F. aircraft to be used for joy riding. On the other hand— [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will let me finish.

Earl Winterton: The Chancellor's own supporters were shouting at him.

Mr. Dalton: The sooner I am allowed to finish, the sooner shall we all get home. What I was saying in regard to the point mentioned by the noble Lord in regard to aircraft was that I think it was due to jealousy. It is an idea propagated by somebody who would like to be in a position to get a joy ride himself, or who is not in the position and heard of someone who was and so was jealous. I believe there is nothing in it, but if any evidence of that kind of thing is produced I can assure the House that it will be looked into.

Mr. Boothby: Is it not a fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is entitled to use an aeroplane to go to Scotland on official business? Is he not entitled to go between Scotland and London in a plane under those conditions, and why should the right hon. Gentleman object to that? The Minister should be able to fly to Scotland in an aeroplane on official business, if that.is the most convenient way.

Mr. Dalton: That was not the question I was asked. I was asked about Private Members—

Mr. Boothby: No.

Mr. Dalton: We are making heavy weather of things that are not in the Bill. There is nothing about aircraft in the Bill at all. The noble Lord asked me a number of questions, and I have been seeking to answer them, but I cannot go on indefinitely answering questions which have nothing to do with the Bill. If anybody has any evidence to produce about irregularities I will look into it, but, so far, none has been produced. Travelling on official business is a different thing. It is laid down in the provisions already accepted by the House, that air travel is to be just as free as rail travel, not merely for Ministers but for all Members of the House, just as fast as we can create and multiply civil air lines. Let us stop suspecting people of doing things which they ought not to do, and of which as I say no evidence has been produced so far.
I return to the major points which have been raised. Private Members will get a net increment—although it will not be net after tax deduction—of plus £400. They will go up from £600 to £1,000. A junior Minister will get plus £500. It is a plus of 500 to be compared with a plus of £400, rather than a total of £1,000 of the Private Member to be put against the proposal for a plus of £1,000 for the junior Minister. I think it "would be excessive for a junior Minister, at this stage, to get a plus of £1,000 when the ordinary Member was getting plus £400, and a Cabinet Minister was getting a plus of zero. I think we are meeting the case reasonably by giving the junior Minister a plus of £500 and enabling him to do what he will do, namely, claim against that for Income Tax relief. Here, we are closely following the proposal of the


Select Committee, which was an automatic tax free increment of £500. That, we think, is not a good thing. But we think it is reasonable to give the junior Minister a plus of £ 500. In order to make it tax relievable you have to put it as part of his salary as a Member of the House, and not as part of his salary as a Minister.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains borough has been at the Treasury, and he will know that it is a principle of Income Tax law—and, in my view, a sound one—that if a person has a composite income composed of two elements, he must not claim expenses, arising by reason of some functions, against the element of income that comes in from some other source. In the case where he is not getting a composite income, but his income is coming from one source, and no income is coming from another source to which Income Tax liabilities attach, it would lead to all sorts of awkward consequences if he were allowed to claim against Income Tax for drawing X expenses arising from doing Y. It would open up possibilities of great fraud and evasion over the whole field of the business world if people claimed extravagantly for expenses which they were setting against income arising from something quite different. Therefore, the Select Committee in my submission were quite right in their proposals with regard to the junior Minister and that it would be bad luck for him that he could not claim for his stationery, secretarial assistance and postages, and therefore that he ought to be allowed something— subject of course to having proved his case, as everyone else has to do. I think we have got the relativities right, in giving the private Member plus £ 400, the junior Ministers plus £ 500 and the Cabinet Ministers plus nothing. That may not be the opinion of others, but that is what we think. That is as good justice, we think as they can get in this world. All these matters can of course be debated further in Committee, although it will not, as the Bill is now drafted, be proper to propose increases on the charge. There are, however, matters that can and will be given further consideration, and I will undertake to give consideration to the points that have been raised.
One other question was asked, with regard to the Paymaster-General. There is

no Paymaster General at present, but it is just possible that it may be convenient, at some later date, to fill that post with some person who may have; a particular job to do. It might be called a sinecure Ministry, but it does net mean that the holder of the office does just nothing. However, as I say, there is at present no such Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: " What about the work? "] Well, it gets done. With regard to the Chancellor of the Duchy, I do not think the difference is really serious. It would not be right to put the extra £ 1,000 a year against the Duchy revenues. On the other hand, he happens now to be performing an important function, and I think if we are accepting £ 3,000 a year as the intermediate salary scale between the £ 5,000 for the senior Ministers and the £ 1,500 for the junior Ministers— in the sense of Under-Secretaries'— it is right that we should pay the Chancellor of the Duchy as we propose to pay the Minister of Pensions at the rate at which the Minister of State now stands. I think that this £ 3,000 is a reasonable intermediate stage. There is no great inconvenience in his income being from two sources, and there is an additional advantage that Members can now, for the first time, move to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy, which might be a very convenient peg on which to hang a Debate, say, on the question of what we are paying the Germans.
I was asked why this increase was dated back to 1st April. It was not done in order to make Ministers look foolish. It was done because salaries are paid monthly. I made the statement on 30th April, and it seemed reasonable that we should date the proposal back to the beginning of the month in which the statement was made I know that 5th April is the date for the change in the Income Tax year, but the best plan, in view of the monthly salaries, seemed to be to date the increase from 1st April. It might be the case that some people might claim for Income Tax remission for four days in the year, but I think the Income Tax authorities are clever enough to meet any difficulties like that. Something has been said about delay. We received the report sometime in March, and if there was any delay in dealing with it, that was not the fault of the Members of this House, or of the Select Committee. The fault if any lay with the Cabinet.


I do not admit there was any delay, but if there was delay, it was as I say the fault of the Cabinet rather than of any of those who would be benefiting from the arrangement. Therefore, it seemed to be a fair starting point to take it from 1st April. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still not satisfied, the point can be raised in Committee, and he might move to alter it in Committee, but I hope he will not think it necessary to go to that trouble. The House has already passed the same date for private Members. I hope that with these observations, the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I wish to put a question to the Chancellor concerning Clause 2, line 10, in which there is reference to the new pay code for the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard. I want to ask the Chancellor whether he has examined the position and is about to bring forward proposals for a similar increase in the pay of the actual yeomen who form the ranks of these honourable corps.

Mr. Dalton: That would not come under this Bill, but it is the sort of thing we would be ready to examine with an open mind.

Mr. Lindsay: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not leave us with the impression that the purpose of the Bill is to increase the salary of the Socialist captains, without increasing that of the Tory yeomen.

Mr. Dalton: To give a serious answer to a very amusing question-—I am not sure how one can be certain that the yeomen are all Tories— the point is that the gentlemen who hold these picturesque titles are, in fact, performing in the House of Lords duties which combine those performed in this House by Whips and by junior Ministers. They have fairly onerous jobs. They have to guide Bills through their Lordships' House and to see that sufficient Socialists are present to resist attempts to modify the Bills.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: The proposition before the House is quite an important one, and I

do not know why there is such a desperate hurry to finish the Business. I am not in any great hurry to get home, and I wish to make a few observations. With regard to the Chancellor's remarks, although he made a very plausible case, as always, I do not think there is very much reason or logic behind the Government's proposal. It is a purely arbitrary proposal. They say that they think that, on the whole, it is a good idea to deal with this difficult situation, but the Chancellor put forward no logical reason for the proposal. I submit in all sincerity that I think it is right to raise the salary of every Member of the House to £ 1,000 a year and to make that basic, and then to adjust the Ministerial salaries on top of that. One may legitimately reduce the salaries of Cabinet Ministers by £ 1,000, but it is only fair to give every Member of Parliament a basic salary against which he can make deductions in respect of expenses in connection with his position. That should apply throughout the whole field, including Junior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers.
We are now planning for a long future. I do not think the question will arise again for a long time, because hon. Members hate to discuss their own salaries. I am afraid that we shall rush this Measure through, and that nobody will make adequate or exhaustive criticisms, that the Government will be rather shy of stating their view, and that we may be stuck with a fundamentally irrational system for the next fifty or sixty years. It would be better to make a good job of it now. I beg the Chancellor to consider the thing, not from the point of view of increasing the total charge, but from the point of view of whether it would not be logical and right to pay every Member of the House, including Cabinet Ministers, a basic salary of £1000 against which expenses could be charged in connection with his duties as a Member of Parliament, and then on top of that to pay Ministers whatever is thought appropriate by the House and by the Government of the day; and in those circumstances the salaries of Junior Ministers and Cabinet Ministers might require to be reduced to a certain extent.
There is only one other point I would like to make to the Chancellor. He got rather hot and bothered about the question of transport, motor cars, and so forth.


Speaking for myself, I would only like to point out that we have had a long and exhausting war, but are still a fairly powerful country; we are one of the Big Three, and I honestly think that if the Government of this country cannot afford to provide for Ministers of the Crown adequate transport, it is a sorry position. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have to apologise for a Minister having a car to take him home or even an aeroplane in which to travel to Scotland if he so desires. We are hard pressed, but we are not as hard pressed as all that. I am in favour of giving all Ministers of the Crown every possible facility in the form of transport at the Government's expense, by car and by air, in order to ease their task. But I think the Chancellor ought to be frank with the House, and say that that is the intention of the Government. I am all for it. I thought it was almost humiliating to this country, that the Chancellor should have to deny that Under-Secretaries of State have motor cars to take them about on official business. Of course they should have motor cars. Ministers have an awful time, but junior Ministers have a worse time than Cabinet Ministers. All should have motor cars to help them in discharging their official duties. I once more urge the Chancellor to consider whether it would not be better, in the long run, to establish a basic salary of £ 1,000 a year for all Members of Parliament, and relate the salaries of Ministers to that basic salary.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

MINISTERIAL SALARIES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the salaries of certain Ministers of the Crown

and other persons, and as to the payment of salaries or allowances as Members of Parliament to persons in receipt of salaries or pensions under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the " Act of1937 "). it is expedient to authorise, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-six:

A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any increase in the sums payable under the Act of 1937 out of moneys so provided which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session increasing the maximum amount of the annual salary of the Postmaster-General to five thousand pounds, of the Minister of Pensions to three thousand pounds, and of the Assistant Postmaster-General to fifteen hundred pounds;
(ii) of a salary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of his office of any amount by which his salary in respect thereof paid otherwise than out of moneys so provided is less than three thousand pounds a year;
(iii) of any increase not exceeding two hundred pounds in the annual salary of one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury which is attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to the salaries of the Treasurer, the Comptroller, and the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty's Household and the said junior Lords of the Treasury;
(iv) of salaries to the Captain of the Honorable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard of an amount not exceeding twelve hundred pounds a year, and to such number of Lords in Waiting not exceeding three as the Treasury may determine of an amount not exceeding one thousand pounds a year;
(v) of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling a Member of the House of Commons to receive payments by way of salary or allowance in respect of his membership not exceeding five hundred pounds a year notwithstanding the receipt of a salary or pension under the Act of 1937.
B. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling a pension to be paid under the Act of 1937 notwithstanding the receipt of a salary or allowance in respect of membership of the House of Commons, so long as the salary or allowance does not exceed five hundred pounds a year."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

CABLE AND WIRELESS [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to bring the share capital of Cable and Wireless Limited (in this Resolution referred to as "the operating company") into public ownership, to provide for the cost of making certain payments to the operating company in connection with reductions in its charges and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the charging on the Consolidated Fund, in connection with the provision of compensation to the companies specified in the said Act as the holders of the shares thereby transferredߞ
(i) of the principal of and interest on Government stock to be issued to them under the said Act, any expenses incurred in, connection with its issue or repayment and any remuneration payable in respect of its management; and
(ii) of sums payable to them under the said Act by way of interest, at such rate or rates as the Treasury may determine, on such compensation for the period beginning with the date of transfer of the shares and ending immediately before the date of issue of the said stock;
the total value (as determined by the Treasury) of the said stock at the date of issue, and the amount on which such interest is payable, to be (in default of agreement) equal to the total value of the shares transferred at the date of transfer, and the value of the shares to be assessed as a proportion of the price which the operating company's undertaking would realise on sale on the basis of its net maintainable revenue and the number of years' purchase to be applied thereto, but without regard to the effect on that revenue of the said Act or of the Bermuda agreement therein mentioned;
(b) the raising by the Treasury, in any manner in which they are authorised to raise

money under the National Loans Act, 1939, of money for the purpose of providing any sums required by them in order to redeem the said stock;
(c)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(i) of the remuneration and expenses of any tribunal set up under the said Act to assess (as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Resolution) the total value of the shares transferred by the said Act; and
(ii) any sums required for the purpose of any undertaking given by the Treasury, in consideration of the operating company's reducing its charges, as to the making of payments to the operating company in respect of net loss of revenue consequent on the reductions;
(d)the payment into the Exchequer of any dividends on the shares transferred by the said Act paid by the operating company after their transfer, the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so paid into the Exchequer and the application of sums so issued in payment of interest otherwise pay able out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."

ESTIMATES

Mr. Corlett added to the Select Committee. —[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.